Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1900-12-28
THE CASE.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE TRIAL OF
THE LINDELIE CASE AT GRAND
FORKS.
Grand Forks Herald: The state re-
called several members of the grand
jury and questioned them as to Lin
delie's. testimony before the grand jury,
and practically the same stories were
told as yesterday. In addition it was
also stated that the defendant had
been very nervous, and that his face
was flushed with excitement. In the
examination Of the grand jurors there
was an effort on the part of both the
attorneys for the state and the defense
to bring out the exact words Of Lin
dele in the grand jury room shortly
after, " some time after, he denied
receiving any money from O'Leary.
One witness, p. X. Ramsey, testified
that Lindelie had prefaced his remarks
by the statement: We'll, l might as
we'll acknowledge it," and then pro-
ceeded to state how the 500 had been
left OH his table by O'Leary. In the
cross-eXamination the defense made a
strenuous effort to shake the testimony
elected.
NJ. J. Healy was then called and tes-
titled that On the day O'Leary had
called at his house in this city two
years ago on the day before O'Leary
claims that he had given the money
to ,Lindelie, and had left $500 in his
keeping owe night, but that O'Leary
had not told him for what he was
going to use it. Here the state rested.
The defense then moved that the
court instruct the jury to return a ver-
dict of acquittal on the grounds that
the testimony of the witnesses was
contradictory and not sufficient to
convict.
Judge Fisk denied the motion.
Mr.. Bosard, before calling the first
witness for the defense, state that he
would show that the money had never
been claimed by Lindelie, that it had
been left at his house under protest,
after he left it that lie could get it
again whenever he wished, etc.
A.. f. Edwards was then called by
the defense, and testified that while in
the depot at Larimore two years ago
waiting to take the train for this city
he had overheard part of a converse
tion between Lindelie and O'Leary,
O'Leary at that time that he could get
his 500 back any time he called for it.
He also stated that a week ago last
Monday evening he was at Mr.. Lin
delie's residence when the $500 was
returned to O'Leary by Lindelie. He
stated that he was in an adjoining
room and heard the former say in sub
stance that he had left the money with
Lindelie two years ago. under the lat
ter's protest.
Mr.. Lindelie then took the stand in
his behalf. He stated in sub
stance that O'Leary had called at his
house several times and tried to in
duce him to take money, but that he
had refused at all times to accept it;
that two years ago last August
O'Leary had come to his house and
before leaving had left $500 on the
table but that he had refused to ac-
cept it, and that afterwards when in
Larimore he had told O'Leary that he
could have the money back at any
time. Regarding the letter that had
been introduced, he admitted writing
it, but said that this was after
O'Leary's place at Larimore had been
closed, and that he wrote the letter
after having received one from a party
in Larimore stating that O'Leary was
b~o0tlegging again. He states that
O'Leary had promised faithfully at the
first of September, 1898, at the time
that Lindelie and J. B. Wineman were
I at Larimore securing evidence in sup
port of the %injunctions which had
I closed O'Leary's place Of business,
that he would quit the business for