Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1901-01-05
whether or not the defendant had ever
attempted to exercise possession OF
authority over the premise

~. 1'Li
George A. JOY the complaining
witness i'm the case, was then called
for the state. Mr.. Cochrane stepped
aside at this juncture and Attorney
General Comstock examined tine Wit
ness. ness. He stalled that he knew where
the premises in question were and that
he had been there almost every night
since the roulette wheel had been
moved in there and had gambled on
the wreel. : Z ( His testimony was in
progress alt press time. a. y +.,.s3 }
the sheriff with A. T. Patterson. wih,,
the witness said had accompanied him
Ito the place where the seizure of the
gambling apparatus was made.
The Witness stated that Mr.. A. T.
PATTERSON had accompanied him 10
the place and was beside the table
when WI the seizure was made. He had
come ITO the count house after the
sherlf and told him he (Pauterson,
wanted 'alrte him ito do some business. They
WENT down town together and Patter
SON went into the building in question
the sheriff following. They walked
up TO THE table and Patterson handed
him the warrant, Stating that judge
winchester y had given it to him.
F. MI Miller asked if Mr.. Patterson
had stated to him before he went into.
Gne building what business he had for
the sheriff to do. s''siz Y =. h ): =. !. .'s'
Mr.. Cochrane objected to this ..
MIR. Miller said that he desired IN
bring out by the Gloss examin
the bias and prejudice of A. It. Pauter-
al,1 son against 5, the defendant, prior to
and and at the time Of the Issuance Of the
wan Warrant Mr.. Patterson being one of
the private counsel for the prosecution
OF 1 tche case, and THAT the sheriff had
been ass conducted into the building he
tore a' a a dis disclosure was made of the ob-
Jecs for which he was wanted. =.
The objection of Mr.. Cochranae was
sustained and the defense excepted IN
the ruling. ss:.asasss 4; =.
Mr' Bogue gave further testimony
as 10 The condition of the table whan
1t was seized, THAT lit was covered wifi,
a cloth, and the table was arranged i'm
COURT as it had appeared when tihe
Sheriff seized it. f.. ;5t.s p !. I.
W. H. Sanderson was then ca11ed ~
the witness stand by the state He
spa0ed THAT he was in the building il
question ON the afternoon the stahla
was saa seized. He said THE table was vs.
MS MS property and had been for a wear
pt: mad been in the building in question
a little over a month. ''5s> ~ >.
!, Ob1eotion~ We're made by the defend
ami s attorney Ito the line of examina-
ton 90 and were overruled. /.
The cou1,t asked the witness If 'he
had ever seen the stable used. The
defense objected and the objection was
oFVs7errTl1led over 'uL The witness said he had
4 llhe COURT asked when and where If
mad had been used, in the Defendant :
knowledge. Il, ,sss.ssss.a.@, =. =. n
: MT Miller objected and the objection
was overauled. I>= -. -. ''%.' NJ T..
The witness asked If he must answer
T.Ht,. - :
a. question which might incrini maize
himself. 90 T.. 'F:*5 :. "a .l.:-s n,
The court directed him to answer
the Question z.% a. Z y ~" ss.},..
.SMr. MI. Y ny lMillier. asked THAT the record
Show bow that the defan dant had asked If
! be Eas'. must. answer J a question which
might ld irlcrdnlinate himself.
The witness stated he had seen the
table used ii the building in n,,ass-
tion.s 0 5 ! 4 4 8}. ~; q, y &T y 5ssg g3iss B.
i'he lal g court lt asked aasked how long prior to
the sfpets seizure M " the witness had seen the
tables used. st, sSf & ii. :. ..l Il Z.
The same objection was made and
the same ruling had. }5.5 53.s, NJ. .Es sSs
:s IN Inc witness said he had seen it
used y dls for something over month prior
to the seizure. 4. ts. :{sss5:5 I, $.S s. 3
Ma, M iller moved to strike out all
tes d5s timony ;n1t as ITO the use of The table
prior IS TO Dec, I, and the motion was
denied. VI 4; ss5s
S The state then pursued a. line Of ex-
81 ami 1li Ilaltion seeking ito asceIta d $by
whose permits sion the table had been d.
tai taken Into the bun ling. 3s8,
dr Sand arson said lie had obtained
ps1'mission from nobody said he
lad NOT moved ut 81 himself but had
n the ,eioss natio,a of ah ea.iff
Rogale 5ir l the trial OF the pattsrson 81
case terday afteaflo Mr. Miller
kloroighltt l'1't out the epnpersatio had bs
|ft ~ dom. li He was not q renter of the
premises,
| Inquaries were made by the STATE as
10 what Their persons aaec cup pied the