Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1917-11-22
WATKINS Put
ON STAND IN
] BREWERY CASE
Superintendent Of Enforce
ment League Testi6es
as to Records.
|. E. O'Leary Asked Anent
Records, But Finally
is Excused.

When the trial Of the East Grand
Forks Brewing company, ct al, charg-
ved$aby the government with having
violated the bone dry law, proceeded
In theaunited States district court be-
fore Judge C. F. Amidon this morn
ing, +. II. Watkins. superintendent OF
the North Dakota Law Enforcement
league. was the first witness called ny
the prosecution. Mr.. Watkins identi-
fed some Of the records of the brew
cry, which he helped seize on the
] night of the raid in July of this
year.
The next witness was j. E. O'Leary.
who also was asked to identify certain
books of the defendant brewery. MI.
O'Leary said that if he did so he
would incriminate himself, to which
United States District Attorney Hid
reth replied lat the witness was not
on trial and that consequently he
could not claim that privilege. IS
The court said:
= s.Iffthe testimony asked relates to
the books of the company, any officer
of that company a be compelled to
disclose any facts relating to books
and records necessary for the identi-
fcation. But if, it applies to indi-
viduals, the evidence might ter to
|; incriminate them, and in that case the
witness is entitled to protect himself.
In cases OF doubt, the presiding judge
must determine, and if he discerns a
tendency to incriminate, it is his duty
as a presiding judge to give the wit
ness the benefit of the constitutional
provision"
Mr.. o'Leary said on the stand that
while he was an employe (in July,
1870 Of defendant, J. H. McInerny,
he was not at that time al employee
Of the East Grand Forks Brewing
company.
On suggestion by Geo. A. Bangs.
counsel for the defense, the question
was taken up for discussion at a con-
ference in the chambers Of the judge.
The conference lasted more than one
hour, during which time much of the
material which had been seized on the
night Of the raid" was gone over in
an evident effort to expedite the trial.
Upon emerging from the judges
chambers, Mr.. Hildreth said that Mr..
O'Leary could be excused and that
his presence as a witness would not
be necessary in the future. 1t appears
that Mr.. O'Leary is a defendant in an
action brought, in connection, with the
present case, by the Minnesota au-
thorities.
Elmer Bagley vas the third witness
called on the stand. He said that he
lived at Gilby, N. D., and that he con-
Quoted an auto livery business there
during July, 1917. Mr.. Bagley is a
defendant in the conspiracy case, but
I after some arguing he was permitted
TO testify.
The witness said. that he had been
at the brewery Office quite a few
4 times during July, and also identified
contracts which had been signed by
Him. -Four of the orders which bore
1 his signature had not been signed by
4 Him, he said. but by n of his friends
1 who had told him of it the following
{ day. During the state fair. week Mr.,
/ Bagley had received seven or eight
/ cases of beer from the brewery and
taken them into the state Of North
| Dakota. On certain occasions beer
had been shipped to him by the brew
h cry, but o at any time after July 1.
i The witness admitted that although
I he knew who had signed his name to
the riders which purported to be
/ signed by him personally, he had not
/ informed anyone at the office of the
I. brewery of this fact. He added that
I when he himself ven there to gel
4 beer he did not say that it vas not al
\ of it for his personal use.
4 The forenoon session adjourned fol-
I recess at 1880 until 2 o'clock this
4 oftorpoou