Vilas County news. [volume] (Eagle River, Vilas County, Wis.) 1896-1927, 1905-12-18
GoFF SPENDS FORENOON FIGHT
ING NOTION.
BAILMENT is SHoWN7
Contends That Enough Has Been
Proved by the State to Send Case to
Jury-Whole Law Library in Evl.
dence-Court Asks Questions-Mo.
ton Taken Under Amusement.

the question of whether verdict
should be directed for the defendant,
occupied the entire forenoon session
yesterday of the trial OF Charles F
Pfister. The time was occupied entire
ly by Assistant District Attorney Guy
D. Golf, who made the opening argu-
ment on the question for the state.
MI Goff's argument was cOmprehen-
sive, dealing at length with every point
raised by the counsel for the defense
on Wednesday afternoon, and he cited
a long list of decisions in support OF
his various contentious.
Court Asks Questions.
Judge Brace several times inter
rupted the speaker with question as
to his view of certain point, or to ask
him to explain more fully certain con
tentions. The attorneys for the de-
Tense also interrupted the argument
occasionally for the purpose of asking
for light, and these latter Interruptions
finally exasperated Mr.. Golf to the
point of insisting that they be stopped,
declaring that he did not wish to be
delayed "to bubble over small points,
At the afternoon session, District At
torney McGovern took UP the argument
for the state He covered, to great
extent, the same ground as did Mr..
Golf He declared that the prosecu-
ton had established not only the bail
hut oh Of 10 oil of
fraudulent conversion, to warrant
Judge Brace in turning the case over
to the jury.
Attorney Charles Quarles made the
closing argument for the defense.
Golf Opens for State.
The argument was opened by Mr.
Golf.
1T now becomes the duty OF the
state" he said, ito reply to the argu,
ments of the defense on the motion to
direct verdict in this case"
Mr.. Golf announced his intention OF
being as brief as.is consistent with the
of. the case. He contended
that the defense, in taking the position
that no bailment had been shown, had
assumed the very point at issue in the
case.
Counsel says because the state has
not proved in so many words that there
was an agreement for the return Of the
identical bills or coins turned over to
the defendant, no contract OF bailment
was made" he said. "To invoke such
a principle is an absurd rule. How
many people entering into a contract
of bailment have in mind the strict
rules of the court?
Cali the state has to prove is a state
of facts which shows the intention OF
leaving the title to the goods in the
bailor, and we claim to have proven it.
Would Invade Province of Jury.
Mr.. Golf insisted that for the court
to take the matter from the jury on the
ground that no bailment had been
proved, would be to invade the prov
ince of the jury.
After reviewing the testimony OF F.
c. Gross, relative to giving the $4,000
to Mr.. Pfister, Mr.. Golf continued:
Doesn't that show that the relation
of these persons was to be that OF
bailor and bailee? This state of facts
does not and cannot show the relation
of debtor and creditor"
At one point Judge Brace interrupt
ed Mr. Golf
Suppose L gave you $1OO, with direc-
tons that if certain bill were present.
ed to you, you were to pay it, would
that instruction in any way affect yOur
opinion as to it being bailment?
mot at ALL" replied Mr. Golf. That,
| think, would be a parallel case to the
one at bar"
Mr. Golf, during his argument, read
many decisions in cases of larceny as
bailee, in which the sums converted
ranged from $4,000 to 95 cents.
"Mr. Pfister, in his own admissions