Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-02-11
Afternoon Session.

After considerable skirmishing over mo
tions to adjourn over Saturday, the testimony
of H. NJ. Blaisdell was resumed He testified
as follows:
Court opened and Immediately adjourned,
and about an hour after that 1 thought the
Judge had been drinking, but did not see him
drink. / never saw him at any other time thai
he was the least intoxicated.
Cross-examined: When l say that she had
been Drinking" only thought he was talking
little foolish.
ALLISON FRANCIS.
Reside at Fairmount and met the respon.
dent at the term of court when was clerk OF
the district court and was IN constant attend
ance. Term lasted eleven days, one Sunday
intervening. In the case of State VS.. Melon.
aid, when the jury came in, Only short
time. Long enough for the sheriff to
secure an order for feeding the jury.
There was one other order made setting aside
an indictment. What was the condition of the
Judge that evening as to sobriety? In my
Judgment he was sober, and no different In his
conduct and manaer from any other time. AT
that term Senator Wilkinson made motion to
dismiss liquor case. At second day, or at any
other time, [ saw nothing out of place. His
orders to me and TO the sheriff were all intelll.
gible. Of the ten days the first day court met
at p. m. In proportion to the time occupied
there was more business done than at any pre-
vious time.
Cross examined: There were general re.
marks to me of the amount of business being
rushed through, which was also my opinion.
One evening l thought he was very tired and
sleepy; it was toward the close of the term.
Did not see him drunk or go into any saloon.
m NOT q drinking man myself
Col. Crooks: In reply to Col. Crooks, he
answered: / have known him for fourteen
years, and [ was present during the whole
term, and nothing transpired to lead me to
think Judge Cox was drunk, or had been
drinking.
WILLIAM BIRD,
the sheriff of Martin county, has been since
1876. was sheriff and am now; present du-
ring whole term of court held in January,
1878. Was present when court held an even
ing session at the the time Mcdonald case was
called. and Cox's language was not peculiar
or any different from any other occasions.
There was no difference in his demeanor, the
second week from the first; mis- manner was
free and easy. Cox's orders to myself and
clerk were all ineligible and coherent. H.
was sober. Noticed nothing the matter with
his eyes. After court adjourned second night
Oh COURT uySSiI anu COA WcTS db Il utHitI
party about two miles from town. Cox re-
fused 10 drink anything.
'Cross-examined: Spent another evening at
party at which the judge drank. l saw him
frequently but never saw him go in or come
of saloons. / was in town during whole
term of court, and in and out of court. Think
I was present every day. Judge mans So
briefly from his actions, both body and mind,
and while some are So drunk they cannot walk
they are quite bright, and uice versa.
In reply to Col. Cooks inquiry 81 had new
er seen Judge Cox till that term of court. and
in my judgment Judge Cox was sober, per.
fectly SOBER"
In reply to COL Adams, witness said: Il
Judge Cox had issued any order in an unusual
tone of voice, would have noticed 1t.
GIDEON sMALE
resides in Paramount, and at present clerk at g
hotel; resided there January 1878, and occa
| sionally attended court, and did not notice
any difference during the second week from
! the first week. "and l considered him during
the whole term perfectly sober. l was at q
dinner party one evening with the Judge, ant
the Judge frequently visited my house; die
| not see him drink any; he did drink some
home brewed ale at my house.
Cross-examined-I attended court as spec