Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1900-12-21
THE LINDELIE CASE.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE TRIAL OF
e THE LINDELIE CASE AT GRAND

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
hold 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
sdelie in the grand jury room shortly
afSer, or some time after, he denied
receiving any money 4 from % 'Leary.
One witness, E. K. Ramsey, testified
that Lindelie had prefaced his remarks
by the statement: We'll, I might as
we'll acknowledge il, z and then pro-
ceeded ito state how the 90 had been
left on his table by O'Leary In the
cross examination the defense made a
strenuous effort TO shake the testimony
ELECTED.
NJ. y. 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 over night, but that O'Leary
had not told him for what he was
going ITO use it. Here the state rested.
The defense then moved that the
court instruct the jury to return a YER
dict of acquittal on the grounds that
the testimony of the witnesses was
contadict story and not sufficient to
convict. hit: @ #
Judge Fisk denied the motion.
Mr. BosaId, 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 i his house under protest,
after he left it that he could get it
again whenever he wished, etc.
a. sE 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
| ton between Lindelie and OLeary,
and that the former had stated to
I O'Leary at that time that he could get
his 81 90 back any ttfme he called for it.
He also STATED that a week ago last
Monday evening he was at Mr.. Lin
delte's residence when the 81 90 was
returned to O,Leary by Lindelie. He
stated that he was in an adjoining
room and heard the fornlea say in sub
stance that he had left the money with
Ldndelie two years ago under the lat
ten S protest.
Mr. Linde1ie then took the stand IN
his own behalf He stated in sub-
! stance that O'Leary had called at his
house several times and tried ITO. IN
fduce him to take money, but that he
] had refused at all times to accept It;
that two years ago last August
sO,Leary had come to his house and
before leaving had left So 90 on the
table but that he had refused to ac-
scept it, and that afterwards when il
5sI4arimore he had told @ L.eary that hs
could have the money back at am. /.
j time Regarding the letter that had
4 been introduced, he admitted writing
1t, but said that this was aftes
o'Iearys S place All Larinaore had beer
closed, and that he wrote the lettel
after having received one from a part.
iii Larimore stating that O Leary wal
bootlegging again. He states thal
O'Leary he'd promised faithf fully at TN
i first Of September, 1898, at the tim G
i that Eindelie and ]. p, Winenan wer
a at Larimore securing evidence IN sup
i port On the injunctions which lla,