The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1899-01-01

n<sAch One SAaanb Anat ne O1O Wnat
He Relieved to BE HIS Duty and
Reasons 1t Out to His Own Sat-
to Say About the Matter and It's
Outcome.
The action Of the mass meeting Of
First ward citizens in criticising Judge
Hine and Assistant County Attorney
Zollman for their course in the dis
charge of William D. Stewart, accused
of an attempted criminal assault upon
six-year-old Annie Paulsen and the
threatened impeachment proceedings
cause the two officials little concern.
Neither Judge Hine nor Assistant
County Attorney Zollman displayed
ire yesterday, when asked for their
views of the proceedings at the meet
ing. by a reporter for The G o b e,
both contenting themselves with a
reiteration of the claim that each had
done his full duty in the Stewart case,
and that they had no excuses to Of
fer.
Judge Hine was seen at his home at
the Albion, where he is still confined
with the grip. Said he:
81 cannot understand why so much
should be made of this matter. Stew
art was given a preliminary examina-
ton the same as any prisoner accused
of a crime, and the evidence failed to
be sufficiently convincing to warrant
holding him to the grand jury. He
was accordingly discharged just the
same as any other person would be
under the same circumstances. The
fact that Stewart was on the verge
OF delirium tremens at the time of the
alleged offense, or that he was not
mentally responsible, had nothing
whatever to do with his discharge
These facts were brought out in court,
1t is true, but it was upon the evidence,
and solely upon the evidence, that I
based my decision. There was no COM
promise because of any mental de-
f1ciency on the part of Stewart, or any
leniency extended toward him by rea-
son of this fact. There was, as a mat
ter Of law, not sufficient testimony to
hold him, and he was discharged.
LITTLE TESTIMONY GIVEN.
GAS a matter of fact, there was prac-
tically little or no testimony against
Stewart, when the story of the girl is
discarded, and, under the law, the girl
was not allowed to testify. The law
provides that any child under six
y
A child over six years Of age and I'M
der ten years can be allowed to tes-
tify, it, in an examination as to her
qualifications to give testimony, the
child is shown to be able to receive
and retain impressions or IDEAS In
the Stewart case the Paulsen girl was
put on the stand to be examined as to
her qualifications to testify. She is
but few months beyond the age
when her testimony would be wholly
excluded. On the examination it was
shown that she was not old enough
to know what she was test}fying to.
She had no knowledge of a contem-
poraneous act, wholly different in pur-
pose. but necessarily almost the same,
as that charged against Stewart. Dr.
Nelson examined the child the night
of the day Stewart was accused of as
saulting her. The girl could tell abb
soiutely nothing about what the ply
sician did She was asked what was
done and what he said, and to every
question the girl replied she did not
know. If she could not describe, In
some way, what DR.. Nelson did, how
was it possible for her to tell what
Stewart was accused Of doing? On
this showing, when the defense OBJ
jected to the child's testimony. I de-