The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1903-04-14
RAFTER TELLS STORY
OF ATTEMPTED
BRIBERY

lllc GuClro ID lHty AIt
Subjected to a Severe Cross
examination.
William L. Keefe, the well known
broker, who has an office in the New
York Life building, was placed on
trial before Judge Bum and a jury
in the criminal division Of the district
court, yesterday to answer to a charge
of attempted jury bribing.
Keefe was indicted by the January
grand jury, if being charged that he
had attempted to influence John M.
Rafter, one Of the jurors who heard
the evidence in the personal injury
damage suit brought by Annie Mas
chik against the Chicago, Milwaukee
& st. Paul Railway company, a case
in the settlement of which Mr. Keefe
was interested. 1t is alleged that Keefe
approached Rafter while the case was
being tried and told him there would
be piece of money in it for him if he
would use his influence toward secur-
ing a verdict for the plaintiff. Keefe
was also indicted on another count of
81 similar nature, but the present trial
is on the Rafter indictment.
The greatest care was exercised by
both sides in the selection of jury,
three triers being employed, and it was
net until after o'clock in the after
neon that County Attorney Kane COM
menced his opening address.
Mr.. Kane spoke forcibly upon the
necessity and Importance of keeping
tie jury free from communicating in
fuences. The jury, said Mr.. Kane, was
the bulwark of American institutions
and of civilization and was for the
protection of the rich and poor alike
Any attempt to interfere with its du-
ties was one of the most serious Of
lenses known to the law.
Rafter Gets Confused.
Patrolman John NJ. Rafter, the jury
man whom Keefe is alleged to have
approached, is the principal witness
for the state. 1t was upon his testi-
mony principally that Keefe was in
dicted. Rafter was the first witness
placed on the stand, and for two hours
and half he was subjected to such a
rapid fire of questions and eross-ques-
lions that he became confused at differ
ent times. Attorney Samuel Anderson
representing the defendant, succeeded
in mixing the witness up on a number
OF pertinent points, and taken as
whole, the evidence of Mr.. Ritter was
not as impressive as 1t might have
been had his memory been clearer 81
The witness testified that he had
been chosen as a juror in the Maschik
case In December, 1899, and that while
the case was pending he was called
from his home one night by Frank
Flanagan, who took him a block from
his home, where Keefe was waiting to
meet him. Flanagan left them togetll--
er, after which they entered. into, a.
conversation in which Keefe is said to
have made the offer which resulted In
the indictment being found against
him.
Rafter asserted that the defendant,
after meeting him on the night in
question, had taken him into an alley
and told him that he, Rafter, was in
position to help him out, telling him
that there would be a piece of money
'
refused to consider the offer, but said
nothing about the matter until more
than two years later.
Flanagan's Memory Poor.
Following Rafter, the state placed
Frank Flanagan on the stand, and he
was kept there until court adjourned
for the day. Flanagan is the proprietor
of the Franklin laundry, and is the
man who is said to have called Rafter
from his home that Keefe might talk
with him.
While called by the state, Flanagan
was not very willing witness. He
swore however, that he had gone to
the Rafter house at the request Of
Keefe, and called Rafter out, taking
him a block down the street, where
keefe was waiting to meet them. Ac-
cordfng to the witness, Keefe had not
asked him to keep quiet regarding the
meeting, but he had told him that he,
Keefe, must be very careful, as the
railroad detectives were watching his
actions.
Flanagan had not heard any of the
conversation between Keefe and Raft
er, having left the two men as soon as
they met each other. Flanagan could
not remember whether this meeting
had been in the summer or in the WIN
ter, but he thought it was two or
three years ago." His memory regard
ing other matters in connection with
the alleged meeting was equally bad,
and on account of his backwardness in
offering testimony, he was rather
roughly handled in cross examination
by both Attorney Anderson and County
Attorney Kane.
Mr.. Kane announced at the close of
the trial yesterday that the state had
but two or three more witnesses, and
it was his opinion that the state
would have its evidence in before noon
| today.
The jurors in the case are Peter J.
Gallagher, Albert E. Damkroger, Dem
mis- Taylor, Lewis A. Wood, Paul J.
Boehm, James H. Bell, Louis s. Elk
strand, Dudley Blodgett, Andrew Beck
strom, William E. Brink, Charles w.
Buechner and Charles A Barber.
DESTROYS SLEEP