Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1922-02-09
The late Wednesdays proceed
ings In the trial of William Gum
nler will be found on page 8.

Cass county; who has been active in
the prosecution Of GUNNER and was
one Of the chief witnesses for the
state. There was some delay while
Mr.. Kraemer. WHO was not in the
court house, was summoned. On his
arrival he was placed on the stand for
cross examination.
line of questions about the circum-
stances surrounding admissions al
legged to have been made by<Gummer
early in the morning of June is at the
Cass county jail.
Green's Objection Sustained.
States Attorney Green promptly
objected on the ground that it was
improper cross examination as
Kraemers had not testified regarding
this particular transaction on direct
examination. Judge Cooley put a
stop to the, argument on the matter
saying that It was going beyond the
Mr.. Green g objection. Mr.. Kraemer
was then excused from the witnesa
stand.
h: Green Cross iExamined.
The defense then Immediately
stand Tor Cross examination on . this
same conservation. Mr. Barnett asked
place at Z o'eiock iii Ilsss IaofninE; the
lights il the insane room where It
took place were not frequently
snapped on. Mr., Green said nothing
of the sort was donef
sat:on to which he had testified. he
objected to the question, If applied to
any time after this portion Of the
conversation. Under a ruling by the
judge, Mr.. Barnett changed the form
Of his question. Mr.. Green again
objected and an argument ensued.
The Judge finally ruled that any ques-
to the conversation to which Mr..
Green had actually testified was in
competent and inadmissable.
Mr.. Barnett then made his formal
offer Of proof, which was ruled out.
Judge Takes Up Questioning.
Finally Judge Cooley himself took
Mr.. Green stated that GUNNER was
in no way Ill treated before or during
the conversation to which he had
testified.
This ended the questioning and Mr..
Barnett began his preliminary state
ment to the jury, outlining what the
defense expects to prove.
Watkins Called.
At the close Of Mr.. Barnett's pre-
liminary statement he called to the
witness stand F. L. Watkins. president
of the Dakota Business college OF
Fargo. Mr.. Watkins after qualifying
as handwriting expert, testified that
he had carefully compared the name
James Farrell on the Prescott hotel
register with samples of Browne
ha WRITING which had been placed
in evidence by the state as a result
of this examination. He said that he
was positively of the opinion that the
name on the hotel register was not
written, by Brown. He then proceed
ed to demonstrate his methods In
reaching this conclusion using for the
purpose enlarged photographs Of the
signature in question. His testimony
was thus directly opposite that given
previously by the states Expert T.'J'
Cation Of Minneapolis.
Mr.. Watkins direct examination
was, still in progress when the noon
recess was taken and was resumed
when the court reconvened at 2
o'clock this afternoon. Mr.. Watkins
testimony was a letter by letter
analysis Of the Farrell signature on
the hotel register and the same words
written by Brown at the. request OF
the Cass county officers on similar
sheet. Photographic reproductions OF
jury men in order that they might
follow Mr.. Watkins testimony there
''Do you find in signature James
Farrell any Of the characteristics YOU
fnd in Browns admitted writing p
asked Mr.. Barnett.
II do not" replied the witness.