The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-12-28
Carrie Sandal Given q Prelimin-
airy Hearing.
GRAND LARCENY CHARGED
Tho Young Girl Was Accused OF Rob-
bling Her Employer OF s27o 5o-The
Defense Holds the Money Was
Taken by Some One Else.

Carrie Sandal, a 14-year-old girl. IA
charged with grand larceny. a peni-
tertiary ofense. for the alleged theft
of an amount Of money set down in the
complaint against her at s216.50 n
some small belongings of the household
in which she had been employed as a
domestic. On December 1 O.. ii. Bur-
bridge, took home with him a sum of
money which, as stated. the complaint
mentioned as the figure given. but
which was stated in the testimony at
the hearing to have been considerably
less. He put the money in "a bureau
drawer and the following morning 1t
was gone. The defendant, who was
employed as a servant i'm the house.
was suspected and later arrested. Her
hearing to determine whether or rot
there was sufficient evidence to war
rant holding her to the district court
for trial, came up yesterday. with Dep
uty County Attorney Stivers. assisted
by Attorney Burbage as special prose-
cutor. appearing for the state, and At
torney Roote for the defense. Attor-
ney Roote set up by inuendo the de-
Tense that a member OF the Burbridge
household was responsible for the dis
appearance of the money, IND succeed
ed in securing a dismissal of the case.
o. II. Burbridge, the complaining
witness was first called. He testified
that on December / he took home
S276.50, which was contained In a sack.
He put the sack in a bureau drawer in
his room. The following morning he
awoke and saw the defendant just in
the act OF closing his bedroom door.
When he went for the money upon GO
ing to his business il was gone. His
wife, while searching for the money,
found a couple of handkerchiefs, a bot
tie of perfume, a spoon and a hat orna-
ment belonging to her in a valise be-
longing to the defendant. From all the
circumstances the witness became con-
WINGED the defendant took the money,
and took the necessary steps to procure
her arrest.
Mrs. Mabel Burbridge testified that
the defendant commenced working for
her the 18th of October last. The night
of Dec. 1 witness n her husband went
home from his Office carrying $256.50 in
a sack. IL was placed in a bureau
drawer. The mex morning the money
was missed and witness searched her
house to see II she could find 1t. She
did not succeed. but found a silver
spoon, a bottle of perfume, two handker-
| chiefs and a hat ornament in a tele-
scope valise belonging to the defendant,
who at first denied having stolen the
spoon, but later admitted il. Witness
pleaded with the girl to give up the
money. but she persisted I'm denying she
had taken Il. Witness sent for the girls
mother and she stayed with her daugh-
ter at the Burbridge house that night.
There was no restraint upon her. Wit
ness identified two handkerchiefs, a
spoon and a bottle of perfume in de-
PENDANTS valise as belonging to her.
Cross-examined by Mr.. Roote, the wit
49,. ..asI ~ na1 hos h,tGhnn nd fnlEnH
the theft over with the defendant and
her mother, and witness had said the
girl was weak-minded and a not
really intended to steal the money, and
II IL was returned the matter would be
dropped. Witness said she, the defend
ant and her mother had a crying spell
and the girl was hysterical n made
admissions as to stealing the smaller ar
ticles. Witness was asked IL Il was
not rue that the valise had stood open
and empty i'm the house, the theory OF
the defense being that the children had
placed the things in the valise which
had been found there. Witness did not
think this was the case. witness was
asked IL she had n conversation with
the defendant and her mother during
the first of the month relative to n Ed
Hoover. She did not.
Ibid you not tell Carry n Mrs. San
dali that your husband had discharged
Ed Hoover; that he was one of your
dearest friends; that he was without
funds and you were anxious to get some
money for him?'
The witness admitted the conversation
with the exception of the reference to
wishing to get Hoover some money. She
had said she thought Hoover had been
o an injustice and she was trying to
get him a position.
Mr.. Roote asked: did Mr.. Hoover
call at your house to see you OF the
day after this money was taken?"
Mr.. Stivers objected on the ground
that the question was not proper cross
examination; that If the defense desired
to show hat the witness stole the
money he must go about IL in a different
way. Mr.. Roote admitted he asked the
question for the purpose of impeach-
ment and held II was a proper question.
The objection was sustained n Mr..
Roote asked II the defendant had not
explained that the small articles found
i'm the valise had not been dropped in
there by the children, with the excep-
ton of the perfume. which she had
taken. as she did not suppose there
would be any objection, she having
shared toilet articles with Mrs. Bur-
bridge. The witness said this was not
true. On redirect examination the wit
ness stated she had access to her hus-
bands funds, had the right to sign
checks and could use money as she
desired at any time. The witness stated
that the defendant had threatened to
make trouble between her and her hus-
band II the case was pressed.
The defendant took the stand In her
own behalf after a motion 10 dismiss
a been overruled. She denied having
stolen any o while employed at the
Burbridge house. Asked to explain the
circumstance of her closing the bed
room door. as referred 10 by the wit
ness Burbridge. when she went in to
build n fire. the witness said IL was her
custom. Explaining the presence OF the
small articles in her valise, the witness
said the parftma xvas the oplu thing che