Omaha daily bee., 1909-12-16
WAS ARMOUR ROBBERY FAKE?
This is Important Question in Can
tonwine Perjury Case,
WINDOW BROKEN, GLASS OUTSIDE
No F~OotprInts Lead 60 small Hole
Through which RObbSr is Supposed
TO Have Entered-Mystery I'm
Ride of Defendant.

SIOUX FALLS, S. d., Dec. 1~5.-(Special)
Interest In the case OF the United States
against ]. G. C~antonwine, formerly a prom
inent business man of Armour. who is be-
ing tried In the United States court in this
city on an indictment charging him with
perjury, Is becoming more keen as the trial
progresses. There is a large volume of
testimony, both in behalf Of the govern
mtnt and the defense, and II doubtless will
be well toward the close Of the present
week before the case goes to the jury,
An important witness for the government
was Rev. Anton Weitzel, who varies his
duties as pastor Of one of the Armour
churches by outside employment. and who
at the time OF the alleged robbery Of the
safe in ~Cantonwine's store of SIS, 800 in cash
on the night Of September IS, 1905, and for
some little time prior thereto, had been
employed as a clerk in C~antonwine's store.
Mr.. Weitzel testified as to his making
an examination Of the surroundings in the
effort to discover clews which might lead
to the detection OF the thief or thieves.
Among other things he alluded to a pane Of
glass In a window In the rear end OF the
store being broken, stating that the hole
broken In the glass was 14X23 inches in size.
The witness stated that no footprints could
be found In the rear of ue building leading
to the broken glass. The alleged robber
was supposed to nave entered the store by
means of the broken window, but the gov
eminent will. as the result of the testimony
Of MIR. Weitzel and other Witnesses, con-
tend hat It would have been physically
impossible for even the smallest man to
have crawled through a hole only 14x23
inches in size, with jagged edges, and with
no support in the way OF boxes or a ladder
on the outside.
Mysterious Drive that Night.
Another important witness for the gov
eminent was John Langfeldt, who was a
guest OF C~antonwine on the night Of the
alleged robbery. The evening of September
Is he went to the opera house. Cantonwine
stating that himself and wife were going
to drive out in the country on a business
trip. When Langfeldt returned to the Can
tonwine home about 10 o'clock that evening
he was surprised, he testified, to find both
Cantonwine and his wife there.
The witness testified that he stated to
Cantonwine that he thought he Canton
wine) had gone out into the country, and
hat Cantonwine replied that they had
gone a short distance and then, because
Of the arkness and having run into a
wire fence, they had concluded to return.
It is supposed the governments purpose in
offering this testimony Is to base the foun-
dalton for the contention that while on this
drive Cantonwine went to his store and
distracted from the safe the money which
he the next morning claimed had been
stolen.
In order to convict C~antonwine of per-
jury It will be necessary for the govern
nient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that the alleged robbery was a fake"
one, and 1t is because of this that the
alleged robbery occupies so large a part
in the testimony of the witnesses for the
government.
Naturally there is great curiosity as to
the nature Of the testimony to be offered
in behalf OF Cantonwine, and as to what
explanation will be made to that part Of
the testimony OF Langfeldt in which Lang
feldt stated under oath while on the wit
ness stand that the broken pieces of glass
from the broken window were all on the
outside of the store building.