The pioneer express. [volume] (Pembina, Dakota [N.D.]) 1883-1928, 1899-10-27
$50 / j Sd 81 ,;asol,.,

Is 80 Dooler <;ass
The end 81 tie Booker case Is in sight.
The prosecution concluded its testimony
and rested the case. The defense began
it's testimony this afternoon. The attor-
neys state that there will probably not be
over five witnesses on their side, includ-
ing Mr.. Booker, himself. He will be
placed on the stand to give his reasons
for certain official acts that have been
questioned.
The regular attendants around the
court room predict an acquittal, claiming
the prosecution has failed to prove orimi-
nal intent in Mr.. Booker's official record.
George Shuts, formerly cashier of the
bank, and now ofWashington, was a star
witness for the prosecution all yesterday
afternoon and this morning. Among the
deals related by Shuts was the scheme
to purchase the orders of the Cherokee
Indians in the Indian Territory for their
allotment of the &C, 0OO. 600 in '94. The
plan was to purchase the orders at dis
count, get the checks on the suo-treasury
and pocket nice profit. Shuts and
George Walsh went down there. The
business was profitable for time until
the Indians got foxy and gave duplicate
orders for their shares. Shuts got some
second orders and lost money on the
deal. They used up s25, 600 in this trans
action though the loss on the orders was
a much smaller sum. Later on So, OOO
was placed to Shuts credit in a Chicago
bank.
This morning Mr.. Shuts testified that
there had never been settlement on the
amounts. When he returned home in
the fall of '94 he reported the losses, but
still thought he could collect on the orders
and returned in November to Fort Smith,
Ark. He failed to realize and wrote Mr..
Booker. There had never been formal
agreement.
This afternoon the defendant moved
the court to advise the jury to find YER
dict of not guilty-upon all the counts OF
the indictments, which motion was beng
argued at the time of going to press
Fargo Forum (Tuesday.)
L. E. Booker, ex-state treasurer and
former president Of the defunct Grand
Forks National Bank, is free man.
His acquittal was directed this morning
by Judge Amidon.
Yesterday afternoon Judge Amidon
overruled the motion of the defence to
direct verdict of acquittal, and the side
of the defence was begun by mastery
address to the jury by Attorney Coch-
rane. The eloquent lawyer was at his
best, and the spectators were unanimous
in the statement that it was one Of the
best speeches heard in the court room
for long time.
Geo. B. Clifford of the Security Trust
Co. was the first witness placed on the
stand. He was followed by Mr.. Brook
err, who took the stand in his own behalf.
This morning it was the intention of
the defense to continue the testimony Of
Mr.. Booker, but Judge Amidon took the
initiative by announcing that he had
carefully considered number of author
tiles on the subject, and would direct the
jury to return verdict Of aquittal.
His decision is the first one ever made
by any U. S. district court judge bearing
directly OH this point. Otherjudges have
hit around the mark, but never made the
decision with so much emphasis and
clearness.
The decision is briefly;
1.-THE defendant, Booker, is indicted
under section 5000 Of the revised stat
utes of the United States, which makes
it crime for the president ofa national
bank to make false entry in any report
of the association to the comptroller of
the currency, with the intent mentioned
in the statute. He is charged with false
entries in four different reports. The
evidence on the part of government al
firnlatively shows that Mr.. Booker neither
made any entry in these reports, nor
directed any other person to do so; that
his only act in connection with the re-
ports was to sign AMI verify the same at
the request Of the assistant cashier. His
counsel claim that this act does not
bring him within the statute creating the
crime of making false entry in report
The question thus raised is, whether
signing and verifying report containing
false entry can be construed as max
ing a false entry in the report, provided
it appears that the defendent neither
made the entry nor directed the same to
be made. This question has been ans
wered by the supreme court of the
United States in the case of Cochrane
VS. the United States, 157 u S. 286, 293,
in unmistakable language. The court
there says;
''The argument Of the defendant as
sumes that the making of the entry and
tine making of the report are the same
thing, whereas in fact they are wholly