The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-06-04

tors again to-day. many attorneys wei {
in the room and even the clergy was rep
resented Rev. Father Cleary and Rev.
c. L.. Morrill, were interested observers.
DAMAGING TO DEFENSE
Freely to Loomis. - ss
A. P. Loomis, the attorney who ap-
peared for Edwards and Howard at theila
trial, was the first witness called by the
state this morning in the Gardner bril-
cry case. He testified that he knew r.
win A. Gardner. He had talk with
Gardner in his office concerning Ed
wards. Howard and Crossman. This
was about the time that indictments were
returned against Edwards and Howard,
about March "a. as he recollected it,
What did Gardner first say to your"
asked AL J. Smith. , .-
Mr. Gardner said that he had been
some money which had been paid for
some one else to have it returned to them
He said in a general way that they had
paid about $500 for the privilege Of do
ing some work for number of weeks.
The privilege had been withdrawn and
there was a rebate amounting to $500
which was due. The money was paid to
some high police official -
The witness testified that he had had
numerous talks with Gardner regarding
the manner in which the big mitt joints
and houses of prostitution and what his
duties were in relation to the police de-
partment and these places.
He could not recall, however, that Gard
ner had said that he was a police officer
and did not. remember seeing any stal
or badge of authority on Gardner. -.
Who Directed Gardner: ->
Did he tell you from whom he received
his instructions regarding his duties?''
inquired the prosecuting attorney.
Il cant recollect just what he said,"
replied the witness, II am not positive he
said it was the mayor or the chief of
police, but am positive he said one or
the other
Where did these conversations with
Gardner take placer
Two or three of these conversations
took place in my office, others as we met
casually on the Streets"
Your office is in the Oneida block?"
Yes, sir
Did you ever see witness in the
mayors office on Third street and First
avenue 81"
mo; I never did
DO you know anything OF the New
York draft for $775 which Roman Mick
had?"
Yes, think 1 do" answered the wit
ness with smile. T.
DID you ever have, any conversation
with Lincoln Crossman, Grin Crossman,
William Edwards and Christopher Nor
beck ?" .-.~. .>.. -. 'W 49,
Yes, sir
you may state what it was"
Norbeck Wns Interested. - -.
1.-THE first conversation had with Nor
beck was at the city hall. Norbeck said
that he had an interest in the draft and
asked me when I made the collection
that l protect his interest"
Did he tell you what that interest
was?'
"He said that it was s25.''
Did you have any conversation with
Roman Mieux?''
Eyes, he was here early in January
last about Jan. g. should think"
Did you receive any money on the
draft here?"
II received it in St. Paul"
How much?"
"S373."
How much did Mr.. MEX receive 2"
why, he received the difference be-
tween SITS and 1878, Of course
Mr.. Mead at several times objected to
the reception Of any evidence in connec-
ton with the MEX draft, arguing that
1t was not pertinent to the indictment
but his objections were overruled.
What Gardner Told Loomis.
On cross examination by Mr. Mead, Mr.
Loomis gave further details as to the
conversation between himself and Gard
ner. The latter had on the first occasion
told the witness that Edwards and Cross
man had paid $500 for the privilege o.
running one Of their joints. but they had
been closed up before the time for which
they had paid had expired. ..-.s,2.
Attorney Henry S. Mead attempt ed to
show animus on the part of the witness
He drew out the fact that Loomis had
Appeared as attorney for ]. J. McGregor
saloon man, who had been arrested
. by Detective Norbeck, and asked If the
witness had not threatened the admins.
tration if they did not stop prosecuting
the man. N- a.. j..
answered Mr.. LOOMS. t"That wouldn't
stand to have any client of mine purse
auted by the police or anybody else''
How long did you act as attorney 70
Edwards and HoWard?'
From the time their trial began unit
to-day
= Did you make q trip to Iowa to Sc,
the prosecuting witness in that case?'
II made a trip to Iowa.
Didn't you see the prosecuting wit
ness there?' N
Il did not
Where did the witness liver -
Mr. Smith objected and the objection
was sustained. .tr.
You acted as Edwards Attorney"
YES"
when the jury had found him guilt,
didn't you ask that sentence be sus
pended until your client could go befor
the grand jury?" lv
This was objected to, and Mr.. Mea
dictated an offer Of what he. proposed t.
show by his line of questioning. He ex
planned that he wanted to show the wit
ness motive, and the fact that he wa
directly responsible for the present trial
MI. Erwin Is Rebuked.
w W. Erwin then took a turn. a
cross-examination, but was prevente,
when it was found that he purposed t,
cover the same ground over which his as
sociate Mr.. Mead~had threshed
Shortly after this Mr.. Erwin In speak
ing to his associate spoke so loudly tina
Difficult Digestion