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

Grand GfOrkS 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
adelie in the grand jury room shortly
AFTER, or some time after, he denied
receiving any money from O'Leary.
One witness, p. K. Ramsey, testified
that Lindelie had prefaced his remarks
by the statement: Well, I might as
we'll acknowledge it,, and then pro-
ceeded to state how the 500 had been
left on his table by O'Leary. In the
cross-examination the defense made a
effort TO shake the testimony
ELECTED.
NJ. =. 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 OLeary
had not told him for what he was
going til S lit. 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
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 he could get it
again whenever he wished, etc.
A. E. 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 converse
ton between Lindelie and O,Leary,
and that the former had stated to
O'Leary at that time that he could get
his 500 back any tfme he called for it.
He also SLATED that a week ago last
Monday evening he was at Mr.. Lin
delde's residence when the 500 was
returned to OLeary BY Lindelie. He
that he was il an adjoining
room and heard the former say in sub
stance that he hadsleft the money with
Lindelie two years ago under the lat
protest.
MI. Lindelie then took the stand in
his own behalf. He stated III SUBJ
stance that GLeary had called at his
1lUuSC SaYSldA LuiSS dllu@tElSN sIU liz
duce him to take money, but that he.
had refused at all times to accept it;
that two years ago last August
OIeary had come to his house and
before leaving had left $100 on the
table but that he had refused to ac-
cept it, and that afterwards when in
Larimore he had told oLeary that he
could have the money back ait any
time. Regarding the letter that had
been introduced, he admitted writing
ii, but said that this was after
O,Learys place at Larimore had been
closed, and that he wrote the letter
after having received one from a party
in Larlmore stating that O,Leary was
bootlegging again. He states that
o'Leary had promised faithfully at the
first OF September, 1898. at the time
that Lindelie and ]. B. Winernan were
ait Larimore securing evidence Ia sup
port Of the in~junctions which had