The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-12-19
STATE STILL AT IT
SECOND DAY OF BURNS TRIAL
MAKES GOOD PROG
RESS
MUCH TECHNICAL ARGUMENT
Court Rules Against Defense GA
Several Obiections-Scope of
States Cese Is Material
" widencd.

Argument back and forth over legal
pcirts of a technical character, AMI OBJ
jcctions to testimony based urea those
QUESTIONS occupied a great deal Of the
time in the trial OF the state ease
against James H., Burns yesterday. One
basis of recarrent objection on the part of
the defense was the description OF the
property set forth in the Indictment
The wording of that instrument had been
copied from the petition for refundment
upon which it was based, ana in both he
property in question was described as
"lot II, block Z. De Bow, Smith, Risque
G Williams addition, whereas it APP
pears that the proper designation OF tic
addition is DE Bow, Smith, Risque Il
Williams addition to St. Paul. Mr.. Don
nelly. for the defense, contended that the
emission of the words Ito ST. Paul was
a vital defect. and that the state could
only introduce proof with reference to
the addition referred to in the indlct-
melt.
The court overruled the potion taken
by the counsel fer the defense, holding
that tae state had followed the property
descriptions found in the fraudulent petl-
ten, and if the property was not prop
erly designated the fault Gid not lie With
the state The state would be permitted
to supply the nece ssary proof to shoWdhe
plat title of The addition.
MdyOr hODCrC "A. SiIitlil WIS SeIiSN -
identify his signature as chairman OF
the hoard of county commissioners to the
certificate attached to the petition for re-
fundment.
An objection to this document from the
defense on the ground that there was no
seal attached was oyerruled by the court
on the ground that the signature OF the
chairman OF the board, and attest OF the
county audi or made the paper Naild
wrether there was a seal or not, Mdyol
smith had no recollection of the signing
- this individual petition, or others of
similar character but he supposed that
all of them must have been presented pc
fore the board.
Addition Is Identified.
Testimony was givca by Henry F. Sou
cheray, whose business is tnat " on
ahstractor of titles, and Fred j.. Bfeeh'
aen,,tv register of deeds of TINS codn-
~ 10 show that there is only one ao-
dition in Ramsey county hearing tie
name of DeBow Smith, Risque q VII
liamS.
Miss Johanna o'Neil, daughter of Da-
vid O'Neil deceased, and Attorneys =.
r Hamilton and Albert Moore, VINO Aad
acted for her in legal procedures sase
testimony to show that the tax c?rtliletse
Exhibit |. which covers the property &c
ton for refundment passed INTO Tue
hands of Miss ONeil as part of the IS
tate of her father, and had nevaf heeil
ASSIGNED to Burns or Ducius
Deputy County Auditor James Drt}m-
nond identified the handwriting OF H. ".
Griswold, former deputy auditor, o.i Il
number of petitions for recruitment az
legged to have been issued at the instance
of tbe defendant Burns and from mat
ScODn
testimony to show other alleged instances
of fraudulent petitions presented by the
defendant.
w. O. Denegre was called to the stand
and au stoned at some .ength S ID u di :
actions in tax certificates conducted by
him. He stated that he had bought
large number of these certificates Tor
clients. and had sold them afterWard to
Matt Item. He had never assigned to-
Rnrns the rights to certificates on lots
8 and Q, block 1859, Robertson's addition
to st. Paul.
Walter D. Davis testified that at Burns
request he had signed a petition for re
fundment of taxes on the property In
Rohertson's addition just described. lie
had never owned the property and had
never held a tax certificate against II.
Harry Weiss said that he had drawn a
warrant at the office of the county audi
tor which called for Si,1oS. Burns mad
told him that the warrant was IN ms
name, and had asked him to draw it. lie
had never made an application for the
refundment and had never held the GER
tificate upon Which the refGndmens was
made. The money was paid over to
Burns.
Judge James Schoonmaker related the
circumstances of a case in which he had
made an application for refundment at
the request of Burns. The money in this
transaction had also been paid to Burns.