New Ulm weekly review. [volume] (New Ulm, Minn.) 1878-1892, 1882-01-25


testimony Of the witnesses 50 far ex.
amined is so near alike, we only pub.
lish below a synopsis Of the most i'm.
portant testimony given by the wit
nesses from New Ulm ard Sleepy
Eye.
EVIDENCE.
Il. F. WEBER ON ARTICLE THkEE.
Resides in New Ulm, is lawyer and knows
Jadge Cox; was present as attorney in the case
ofWells vs.. Geisecke before Cox in Brown county;
he also said something, think, about fearing to
get INTO trouble; Judge Cox finally agreed to sit
and Mr.. Goodnow was chosen to do the writing;
Judge Cox knew OF the stipulation to have man
record the proceedings which were largely docu
msatry ns was int t The
himself, that he was unfit to 60 ahead with the
trial.
Judge Cox presided at the general term held in
Brown county in 1880; during the trial Of Me-
ed two days; was intoxicated both days.
At the last May term of court in Brown ounty,
Judge Cox was Intoxicated in court during the
trial of cases and throughout the three days of the
at New Ulm; in another case he fired man
named Wildt 500 for contempt; the man was a
defendant in divorce suits hs then raised the fine
finally revoked the Whole; Cox told the German
h. was in bad scrape, and would have to send to
John Lind to get him ont; Lind was not there, but
Of affidavit, on which Judge gave the German 30
days; saw Judge Cox drunk at Redwood Falls,
think i'll January. 1880; | remember the case of
case; 1t was terribly hot day, and I made the
suggestion to stop OH the steps; Judge Cox came
up: and was very drunk; detendant's name was
ougt to to cascr ss
any money!" before that Cox had sad:
"I'm sorry, John, but I've got
to ofk he took enS Of
pitcher Of beer; Cox and Castor drank some; so
did I, and so did others; Cox did not make any
ruilns on the order; he wouldn't, and we went
away without getting any decision.
Cross. examned-I don't remember the date
the commencement OF the last term in Brown
county, Judge Cox was intoxicated all through
the term; not to the same degree at all times per-
haps; on the evening reierred.to he was excess
sively drank; he was very drunk at other times,
but this time he was very excessively drunk: AS
said, his jaw fell and his face was stod
JANUARY H.
B. F. Weber cross.examination continued-In
the case of the State vs.. Hawk, tried at Redwood
Falls in January, 1880, Judge Cox was in his room
and was there. had rather not give these par
ticulars unless you waEt them Counsel wanted
them). We were at the Commercial House, I
in for verbal Instructions; Charley Ware, the re-
reporter, a man named Orth, Mr.. Northup aud two
or three others were present; didn't drink any
thing; Judge Cox drank out of bottle; should
say he drank twice four times; Mr.. Gale was
sheriff at that time; think; my recollection Is
that when we got to the jury he merely reread an
instruction he had given on the original charge;
he seemed to do it in good shape; there was me-
lodeon in the court room and when the jury went
out Judge Cox went over and played on it; he was
drunk and showed it in the way he played and the
that day but had to give it up; Cox wouldn't listen
but kept telling Castor how sorry he was he had 10
lock him up; more than week afterward Castor
was II, Jail; think when the jury came in in the
Howard case Judge Cox was the drunkest ever
saw him.
Re direct-1 have no knowledge as to whether
Judge Cox has been more addicted to drink since
| the commencement of 1881.
JOHN LIND SWORN
| upon article 3.
Reside at Tracy; receiver of the land office;
lawyer by profession; have practced at New Ulna
since 1876: have known him since the spring of
1873; wss in attendance upon the hearing CT Wells
vs. Geisecke, Jan, 10, 1879; under the influence Of
liquor; the judge was intoxicated the night before,
and that day was suffering from the reaction; he
was drunk the night before; saw him several
times; didn't notice anything particular in his
behavior; saw him about o'clock tie afternoon
before, and he was then intoxicated.
Cross.examination-I thought the judge was
suffering from the reaction Of the intoxication of
| the day before, though thought he had been
drinking. II was what we call In New Ulm ''kat-
MS n8'E puleu, ana ne IelC I'LL
and stupid. Did not notice anything particular
| out of the way, though thought him less inca
pacitatedfor business than if he had not been in
crazy drunk or terrible drunk. don't reeolleet
Of his making any improper rulings. If he had
done so think should have recollected it. Don't
recollect that Judge Severance told Judge Cox to
| keep still.
! Re-direct--Judge Cox was cross will himself
| and every body, He acted little contrary.
Manager Collins proceeded next to examine wit.
ness as to specifications in article XVII. Witness
testified that at the May term, 1891, at New Um,
by mutual agreement of attorneys after the trial Of
one case, they continued their cases to the next
| term of court. saw Cox on the streets of New
| Uln; he was drunk on the street; one time in
who tried to induce the sheriff and myself to go to
with him to house Of ill-fame.
Mysslf and sheritfrefused to go with him, saying
it would be disgrace to our wives, etc. After
wards went to the hotel. This took place about
on his arrival the first day, but his dress and
personal appearance did not convey the idea that
| he was drunk-he charged the jury and proceeded
about as usual, but in the afternoon was drunken
than ever saw him, acting In wild and Eighty
manner. Have seen Judge Cox during the past
year year probably thirty or forty times-many times.
not all the times, but they are the fragrant ones.
Judge Cox had lost nothing in his tone of charac-
| ter during the past four years.
EDWARD CASEY.
This witness was examined under article IS
| charging habitual drunkenness.
Witness resided at New Ulm was sheriff Of
Brown county; had known Judge Cox fourteen or
nIteen years; was present at the term OF court in
| influence of liquor; could not say he was drunk;
Judge Cox sent for witness once; Judge Cox was
on the sidewalk; it was about 10 O'Clock in the
| liquor; Judge told witness he wanted him to &c
down to Mrs Shields and arrest every body in the
house; the woman keeps house of ill-fame; wit.
ness saw the county attorney and told the judge
that if he gave him warrant he would make the
arrests; the Judge was in saloon; he took piece
OF paper ana commenced writing but did moi
| eleven O'Clock; somebody WcIt to the hotel with
the judge,
Witness thought the Judge was badly under the
influence Of liquor at other times in New Ulm; had
known him to be intoxicated several times.
! A. BLANCHARD CALLED.
Witness testified lie was clerk of court of Brown
county; knew Judge Cox.
Witness testified that during the proc eedings in
Wildt VS.. Wildt he thought Judge Cox was intoxi
Gated. Copies Of other records If cases tried in
that term of court were put in evidence.
Cross.examinatiOn-Wi thought Judge Cox
was up above New uTm when he telegraphed wit
ness to adjourn court the 18TH of June 1881; Nigh,
have been from st. Peter; the court was adjourn.
ed on Judge Coxs responsibility, and not on wit.
mess witues testified at some length to the Gus
toms OF Judge COxs court in reference to writing
oat verdicts); the orders in the Wildt case were
not written out by Judge Cox; witness wrote them
out sJudge Cox dictated; the judges orders were
was not very good one; the defendant was . lit.
tie crazy, and kept walking the floor and striking
his fist; Judge Cox might have said he would fine
the defendant S1,25O but did not actually do so.
! Re-direct-rhe court had taken recess to await
verdict; witness Was sent for . baili6 about 8
o'clock thatln night OF tho Wildt fne; Judge Cox
was intoxicated.