Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1913-12-06
Former Tfeasufef's LAWYERS
VIII File Application
Next Week
Base Appeal on Dissenting
Opinions Of Supreme
Court Judges
Judge Fisk Held Jury Con.
vIcied Man Differently
Than Charged

Attorneys for G. l.. Bickford, for
mer state treasurer, will move for
rehearing in his case next week.
Last Friday the supreme court In
a majority opinion Of the judges af-
firmed the decision Of the district
court which found Bickford guilty of
embezzlement.
According to this decision Bickford
must serve an indeterminate term in
the penitentiary of from to 8 years.
A stay of sentence for Is days was
allowed the former official, however,
in which to apply for a rehearing.
This appeal will mark the last battle
of Bickford's fight to save himself
from prison.
His attorneys declare they will base
their application for the rehearing on
the conclusions stated in the dissent
ing opinions of Judge Fisk, whose
views We're agreed in by Chief JUS
tice Spalding.
Among the salient points in this
dissenting opinion of which the at
torneys expect to make much in their
application are Ule conclusions that
tho jury tes 81 verdict, in legal eff.
feet acquitted him of the crime charg-
ed In the information, and attempted
TO find him guilty Of another and
distinct Offense.
Judge Fisk in dissenting, calls at
tention tc the fact that the informa-
ton charged Bickford of being guilty
of embezzling $60,43S.11, for which
sum the defendant held certificates
of deposits issued by the Bowbells
State Bank. The jury only found
him guilty Of $54.65, which was an
interest check he had demanded
from a Flaxton bank, and the dis
senting opinion claims that amount
was not included in the information.
George Bangs of Grand Forks, is
the main attorney in the case and
Niles & Koifel of Bismarck, are at
torneys of record, they being ac-
lively in the case when it was tried
two wears ago. IN,
Following is the dissenting opinion:
Fisk's Minority Opinion.
Fisk. j. (dissenting) am unable
to concur in the conclusion arrived
at in the majority opinion. While
do not disagree with much that is
therein said by my brother Bruce,
and am willing to concede that de-
fendant, under the record facts, was
guilty Of the grossest irregularities.
and perhaps embezzlements, in the
exercise of the trust reposed in him
by the peorle of this state, am COM
pelled to the view that the jury, by
its verdict, in legal effect acquitted
him of the crime charged in the in
formation, and attempted to find him
guilty CT another, and distinct Of
fense not charged therein
In this dissenting opinion deem
it unnecessary to consider any other
point in the case and shall merely en-.
deavor to briefly make clear my view
upon the one point above mentioned.
The verdict finds the defendant
guilty of embezzling the sum of $54.-
65. This is the exact amount Of the
interest check, Elk. los sent to defen.
dant at his request by the Flaxton
bank, and it is entirely clear that
this check constitutes the item, for
the embezzlement of which the Jury
found defendant guilty. The record
demonstrates this to be
a fact. To justify the verdict, there.
fore, the court must be able to say
that. such item is embraced within
the charge contained in the informa.
ton, for, of course, it is elementary
that a person cannot legally be con.
victed of an offense of which he has
not been formally accused. The in.
- IltnntinMed m PAGE 81 - M -