Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-01-21
THE HIGH COURT.

Testimony Produced Before the Cox Inn
parchment Court Yesterday-Some of 1t
Decidedly Favorable to the Accused.
and Some Rather had.
Upon the opening of the impeachment court
yesterday morning, Geo. w. Somerville, of
Sleepy Eye, Brown county, under examination
when court adjourned the night before, upon
the charge that Judge Cox was drunk during
term of court in New Ulm, May, 1881, was
cross-examined as follows: Was at New Ulm
on the opening of court the first day. Thought
Judge Cox was intoxicated. His hair was
uncombed and he had on dirty shirt The
judge drove from Sleepy Eye, and went to the
court room at once. Was present at the trial
OF Thomas VS.. WEIGH. Thought him intoxi-
Gated during the entire trial. Any one having
business with him would notice it. Thought
he made impertinent remarks to plaintiffs
counsel. Have not talked with Mr.. Weber
about the condition of the judge. He was
not so bad the second day, and still better the
third day.
Mr.. A. G. FORBES.
was called upon article Is, with being intoxi-
Gated at Marshall, May, 1881. Was present at
term of court at that time. Was going to
my Office. Met judge Cox on the street, and
thought him intoxicated. Have seen Judge
Cox when l thought him intoxicated, and
still he conducted business promptly, and as l
thought, rightly, so it Is hard for me to say
positively about his drunkenness.
At request of witness ne was allowed to cor
rect his previous testimony, when he testified
the Judge was drunk. He meant merely to
give it as his opinion the Judge was intoxi-
swearing positively the Judge was drunk.
GEORGE CHAPMAN
was called upon article IA, charging drunken
ness at term of court in Lincoln county,
June, 1881:
Reside at Marshall. Met Judge Cox in Lin
coin county, June Is, 1881. Court was being
held. Was there the 18th day of June. In
PRODUCED to the Judge that evening. Thought
him intoxicated. Met him the next day
His condition was about the same as the day
before. Had case in court. When my case
was called asked time to plead which was
granted. When case was called we offered no
testimony; one reason was we had not plead.
Under instructions the jury found against me.
My attorney objected on the ground we had
not plead. The clerk confirmed the state
ment, when the judge adjourned court. Dur
ing the recess the judge met me and told me
if l did not come into court and plead guilty
he would fine me $50, as he did not propose
to have any Connecticut blue laws played
upon him. He further said he would make
me pay the costs of that jury anyway.
Plead guilty in the afternoon and he fined me
$40 and costs; saw the Judge drink several
times during the terra of court; thought him
intoxicated.
Cross eqamined-Don't know whether nv
case was on the calendar; the charge against
me was an assault to commit rape. The only
evidence brought out was that I took hold OF
the girl and attempted to kiss her; after that
evidence the judge said he did not want to hear
any more such evidence as that upon charge
of rape. 1t was too frivolous; didn't show
one or two other gentlemen stood on the steps;
the fine and costs amounted to $47.1O.
EDWARD CASEY
was examined upon article IS, charging habit
ual drunkenness.
Reside at New Ulm, sheriff of Brown coun.
ty. Know Judge Cox fourteen or fifteen
years. Was present at the term of court IN
New Ulm, May, 1881. Consider he was more
or less under the influence of liquor the en-
tire term. Cannot say he was drunk, but he
was more or less intoxicated. Judge Cox sent
for me once. Found him on the sidewalk. It
was about ten o'clock in the evening. Thought
him under the influence of liquor. Judge told
me he wanted me to 60 down to Mrs. Shea's
and arrest everybody in the house. The woman
keeps house of i'll fame. That is about all
be said. Don't know as said anything, but
made up my mind to see the county attorney.
Saw the county attorney. Then went back to
the judge and told him if he give me a warrant
would make the arrest. The Judge was in a
saloon. He took piece of paper and COM
menced writing, but he did not complete it.
Supposed it was an order. Thought ne was
more intoxicated than when first met him.
Saw him drink once or twice. Must have been
about II O'Clock. All went home then. Some
body went to the hotel with the Judge.
By Manager Collins-During the converse
ton did the Judge say anything about having
been to that house of prostitution that night.
Objected to by counsel, and objection sus-
tanned by the chair, upon which an appeal was
taken to the court.
Senator Campbell moved the objection be
overruled, upon which the yeas and nays were
called, resulting-yeas g. nays 17-thus sus-
tanning the objection.
badly under the influence of liquor at other
times in New Ulm; have known him to be IN
der the influence of liquor two or three times.
For man TO be drunk, / should think he
would have to be so much under the influence
of liquor he could not properly attend to his
business.
The council declined to cross examine the
witness.
A. BLANCHARD
was examined as to specification Z, article II.
Clerk of the court of Brown county, knew
Judge Cox. [shown paper]. Certified copy
of the case of Willie VS.. Wilde.
Manager Collins stated he desired the COPY
put in as evidence.
Counsellor Acknowledgment as not proper
record to prove facts.
The chair oyerruled the objection and the
paper was read.
The paper in question refers to the pro
ceedings when the court found Wilde, the de-
PENDANT 500 for contempt in not paying all.
mony, subsequently increased to 1880. and
later upon an understanding with defendant
RENTED the fine and ordered him to paw