Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-05-29

Counsel first objected to Tie questions leading
to the above answer, but Withdrew it.
This gone through with Mr.. Kimball.
in answer, said he was member of the
Page devoted much Of his charge to the subject
of libel mentioning writing libel and publish
ing libel, and defined what constituted libel.
Was present on the Grand jury when the libel.
matter was investigated. The cross-examina-
of this witness was brief and unimportant.
when the first term of court was held after in
dictment of Mollison but counsel stating they
would cover that point fully, it was with
drawn.
Manager Campbell here announced that
Messrs. Yates, Jones and Sutton, subpoenaed on
this article, would not be needed, and they
were discharged, and article two was taken up.
ARTICLE TWO.
This article alleges that Thomas Riley was
employed rs deputy sheriff of Mower county at
term of court in 1875, and that when the bill
of $42. 10 was presented Judge Page went be-
fore the county commissioners and in an
angry and threatening manner directed them
not to allow the bill. That Riley brought suit
before Justice of the peace and obtained
Judgment against the county, but that Judge
Page had arbitrarily interfered in his judicial
capacity to prevent payment.
THOMAS RILEY
was called as the first witness upon this article.
Being sworn, Mr.. Riley said in 1875 he was
acting as deputy sheriff. served some subpenas
for which his fees were $43.10, which the
county commissioners refused to allow. An
other year the commissioners refused to allow
the bill. Page was not present at either time
Has known Judge Page eight years, but is not
on good terms with him, and has not been
since the acknowledgements jim 1874.
LAFAYETTE FRENCH
again took the stand to testify upon the second
article. He was county attorney in 1875. Was
before the board of county commissioners
several times. In March, 1875, Mr.. Riley pre-
sented his bill: conversation ensued, in which
Judge Page stated the bill was not
legal against the county. Page then
alluded to corrupt agreement by which Riley
was appointed to the office, and that I knew
about it. denied it, and both Judge Page
and myself talked loud and excited about the
matter. Don't think the commissioners trans
acted any business at that time. All were ex-
cited, and both Page and myself apologized to
the commissioners for our conduct. January,
1876, Riley's bill was presented again, and the
talked with Riley, and he agreed to take 500.
In the afternoon Page appeared before the
board and stated the charge was illegal, and
ought not to be allowed, no issue of fact having
been joined there was no need of witnesses.
The bill was disallowed, and shortly after, pro-
ceedings were commenced against the county,
and Judgment was rendered against the
county in Justices court, when the case was
appealed to the district court. When the case
came up for hearing before Judge Page, the
Judge, objecting to portion of the stipulation,
which he said was not true, took his pen and
struck out the sentence objected to without
the consent of the parties entering into the
stipulation.
It being o'clock when the direct examina-
ton of Mr.. French was completed, and counsel
for respondent stating that his cross-examina-
ton would be quite lengthy, the court, on
motion of Senator Hall, adjourned.