REPUBLICAN POST

January 31, 1890

 

General Merchandise

The Search Warrant Proceedings Close Saturday

 

            Court opened in Justice Chesley’s office, the council room, and adjourned to the City Hall, Saturday morning at 10 o’clock.  Mrs. Glenna Stetson was the first witness sworn, examined by Mr. Stewart.  Witness examined the goods and picking up a cake stand and skirt cloth, said she saw Miss Lytle take said articles.  Saw her cut off the skirt cloth on the morning about Nov. 1st, and put it under the counter. Did not see any cash checks or charges made.  Suspicions were aroused about June 1st, on account of some dress goods.  We both purchased dresses alike, mine was billed at 84 cents more. Miss Lytle under-charged hers. Miss Lytle admitted to me the next morning after she confessed to Mrs. Stetson.  She said it was not quite a year since she had been taking things.

            On cross examination by Mr. Sanborn, Mrs. Glenna Stetson said she never mentioned the matter of the discrepancy of charges of dress goods, to Kitty.  Testimony as to examining cash checks, books, etc., about the same as on direct examination. Cash checks were always itemized.  Witness sworn to Mrs. Wells getting a few items of goods of about 70 cents more value than the cash check was put up for.  This was between the 17th and 22d of Nov.  She confessed to me, I think, on Nov. 25th, in the milliner’s work room.  I took hold of her and told her she need not talk about it.  She said she had not been herself.  There was many tings that could be explained but she was not at liberty now to explain them.  Said some things that had been told Mr. Stetson were right.  Said she was not all wrong.  She wished I had come to  her.  The day before she left, Mrs. Hudson was in the store.  Kitty came to me and asked me what Mrs. Hudson said.  She asked me if Mrs. Hudson had ever talked with me before about it, I told her she had.  She said if this thing has got out, I am not going to stay. She said Edith Stinchfield had been talking with Mrs. Hudson about it.

            Q. by Mr. Stewart:  You may state briefly why you did not tell Mr. Stetson.

            Ans.  I knew it would be difficult thing to do, Mr. Stetson thought a great deal of Miss Lytle.  I went to my father, the first time he said, perhaps you had better not say anything.  Afterwards he said Mr. Stetson ought to know it.  But that same day Mr. Stetson and Miss O’Grady talked about it.

            Mrs. W.A. West sworn.  Testified that the goods taken from her house were not her goods.  Miss Lytle occupied room with Miss Mather.  Mrs. West testified that she asked Miss Lytle about the reports, and Miss Lytle said she was innocent.

            Florence Mather, a dressmaker at Mrs. Stetson’s, who had roomed with Miss Lytle at Mrs. West’s; testified to a few things that the sheriff took from their room were hers, but he returned them.  Was there part of the time the things were being taken.  Witness testified that at one time Miss Lytle showed an inventory of her possessions, among the list being “seventeen table cloths.”  I said:  “You have enough to give us all one.”  I read the inventory and handed it back to her. One day, before Nov. 20^th, she showed me some table linen.  She said she was going to save fifty cents a week until she had enough to pay for it. Saw that table linen in Stetson’s store after she was discharged.  I asked her about it, she said she had brought it back as she had not paid for all of it, but she had taken other goods to balance what she had paid.  The reason she hid it, was because she did not want it sold. Intended to buy it later.  She said there were some things that had been said that would not look straight, but she had Mr. Stetson’s work and honor.

            Cross examined – I knew about it Nov. 24^th, Mrs. Stetson told me.  She went away the 18^th, but had been there several times before the search warrant was made.  The things was in our room.  Some of them in the trunk but the trunk was not locked.

            Mr. Stewart asked witness if she had ever bought goods or traded with Miss Lytle.  Witness said she selected a pair of shoes and asked to take them home to try on, Miss Lytle said she would have to charge them, but they would credit them back if she returned them.

            Miss Bessie Knutsen who works at the dressmaking rooms of Mrs. Stetson and boards at Mrs. West’s was called and sworn, testified that last August she told Kitty to lay aside some table linen, which witness wanted to purchase, but Miss Lytle said she could not do that.  Afterward when I went to see about buying it, she said it was sold to Mrs. Manchester.  I have since seen it in the store.

            Mrs. West recalled, and testified to Miss Lytle’s bringing up to her house two dozen napkins, and she selected a dozen and paid for them. Miss Lytle returning the dozen not purchased.

            Court took a recess until 1:30 p.m.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

            Mrs. Edith Stinchfield sworn.  Testified as to purchasing a piece of felt, one-third of a yard.  Miss Lytle cut it off and took it to my room, in Churchill’s block.  I paid Kitty for it in the evening.

            On cross examination, witness testified as to Mrs. Stetson taking from her room, plush, satin, linen goods, etc., which she was going to work for Miss Lytle, next day after Kitty was discharged.  Witness testified that Miss Lytle told her some time in November, if she made any fancy work for her, not to bring it to the store; because the girls plagued her.

            Mrs. H.J. Stetson recalled.  Mr. Stewart asked witness to state how she come to go to Mrs. Stinchfield’s to get goods.  Referred to in Mrs. Stinchfield’s testimony.  “When I came in from my dinner, one of the girls said:  ‘If you want to know whether anything has been taken by Kit, go over to Mrs. Stinchfield’s.’”  Witness testified as to the articles at Mrs. Stinchfield’s, and on looking at the books and cash checks saw no charges for them to Miss Lytle.  Testified as to the list made by Court Reporter Spencer.

            Court Reporter Spencer was sworn and testified in regard to list of type written goods, and the list was offered in evidence.

            H.J. Stetson recalled and testified in regard to no cash checks or charges having been made to balance the dozen napkins sworn to by Mrs. West, as having been paid for to Miss Lytle, also to the fact that he had looked over his books carefully, in regard to charges for various articles of goods taken on search warrant.

            On cross examination by Mr. Sanborn, witness testified that he had no cash checks of any moment, but intended to keep all of the cash checks after he first heard of the irregularities.  There appeared to be only two bundles left.  Some were missing.  Mr. Sanborn examined witness pretty technically in regard to whether he looked over cash checks with reference to those napkins purchased by Mrs. West.

            Mr. Stewart said the state had been hampered in this inquiry by “la grippe”.  Miss Jeffers, the former cashier of the store, was sick, also Miss O’Grady, one of the witnesses who had been detailed to look over the order books.

            Mr. Stetson recalled and testified that he had examined the order books, which, were offered in evidence.

            Miss Lizzie Lytle, an aunt of Kitty, sworn and testified as to certain goods left at her house. Mrs. Lytle’s testimony revealed nothing of importance, except that she did a large share of Kitty’s sewing, among the things made, being the comforter made of zephyr cloth, mentioned heretofore.

            Sheriff Williams sworn, and testified that he took some of the things on the search warrant, and some were taken by his deputy, Ed Williams.

            J.N. Van Epps was sworn, and testified as to the umbrella taken on search warrant, as being one that Miss Kitty gave him a year ago last Christmas, for a present.  The ledger containing Mrs. Lytle’s account was introduced in evidence, and Mr. Stewart announced that the state rested their case.

            A few minutes recess was taken and A.W. Sanborn commenced his examination, by calling C.J. Vosburg, salesman at Stetson’s, and the person who swore out the search warrant to recover goods alleged to have been taken from the store.

            Witness started in by saying he had worked in Mr. Stetson’s store one year and a half.  Kitty Lytle had never admitted or made a confession to him, about the affair.  At this juncture Mr. Stewart jumped up and most strenuously objected to Mr. Sanborn’s conducting a defense, by calling in all of Waupaca as to what they did not know about the affair, and making the defense like a direct examination. Mr. Sanborn said there was no party to this case; it was like a coroner’s inquest.  If Mr. Vosburg knows anything about these goods being stolen, I want to know it. Justice Chesley ruled the witness might tell what he knew in answer to questions.

            After a little more sparring, examination proceeded.  Witness testified as to several supposed irregularities, but could not remember days or dates.  Examined cash checks and books sometime in November, soon after a piece of felt was taken. No cash checks or charge.  Mr. Sanborn started to lead the witness off and Mr. Stewart said this testimony is all taken under one general objection. Mr. Sanborn said all he was after was the truth.  “Well,” said Mr. Stewart; “If it is the truth you are after, I will let you alone.”  Witness testified as to the articles sold to Mrs. Wells, and that only two articles were on the cash check.  Kitty cut off some lamp wick; that was not on.

            At the time Mrs. Lizzie Lytle took a bundle, given her by Kitty, some oil and matches were the only things charged to Mrs. Lytle.

            N.W. Stetson sworn, testified that he was a brother of H.J. Stetson, and had worked in the store eight or nine years.  Attends to the delivering of goods; in store probably two-thirds of the time. Never saw Kitty Lytle take goods.  Girls perhaps carry packages sometimes.  The rule is to itemize everything on the cash check.

            Peter Jenson a clerk in the store, testified he never had a talk with Kitty Lytle, and knew nothing about this case.

            Mr. Stewart interposed another objection and arose to argue that they would not get through in six months, if all the people who knew nothing about the case in Waupaca, were brought in, Mr. Sanborn said:

            “I am done.”

            Justice Chesley said he would hold that from the evidence, there was reasonable grounds to suppose that the goods had been stolen.

            By consent of Messrs. Stewart and Sanborn, District Attorney Hutchinson and Justice Chesley, the order of the court in the premises was held open for two weeks.  Sheriff Williams to care for the goods.  Miss Lytle sent a request that she be permitted to examine the articles in the presence of the officers on the following Monday, which request was granted.

            Thus the case rests for the present, with a probability that if no settlement is effected between the parties, Miss Lytle will give her side of the story at a later date.