Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-02-15

the forenoon. I knew it because saw him
drink beer. Also, the first day of May term
Of court, 1881, q party of gentlemen, myself
among the number. Also, during the Wlseca
term OF court, 1879, only from what heard,
not from what saw, but not intoxicated. /
don't think few glasses OF beer had any ef-
feet on his intellect. he simply was gay, I'M
usually jovial. This was in my Judgment
the manifestations of being under the infu-
ence of liquor. i733
Redirect-These times when he was unusu-
ally jolly were not when he was on the bench.
MAT. FORBES.
Am clerk at the Goodwin house, Wsseca.
Saw Cox at spring term Of court, 1879.
served as q juryman In case Of Howard vs..
Herman. Trial commenced afternoon of
second day. There was an evening
session lasting till II O'Clock. Judge
Cox was perfectly sober. Cox was not sleepy.
Hair combed and eyes not bloodshot. Cox
was suffering from boil. The lawyers were
constantly arguing about something in which
Cox took part. saw no difference in his
appearance from other occasions. He sat
about as usual, and during the balance of
the whole term he was sober.
Cross-examined-I served on jury three days
and half. Not engaged at that time il any
business. Ny attention to this was called by
the investigation OF this court. Do You know
anything about Judge Cox drinking or fire.
quenting saloons this term of court? do not;
never saw him.
e. A. RINKER.
Reside at Sleepy Eye, am merchant, and
have known Cox for six or seven years. and
personally for four years. I was witness in
a case at New Ulm term of court of 1880.
Present all the term. cod :.
Referring to several cases at that term of
court, Cox remained perfectly sober during
the whole time.
Cross-examinec: After testified, on Arst
day remained most of the time in the court
room. was present when he charged the
jury in the case of McCormic vs.. Kelly. No
body called my attention to his being drunk.
II Cox had been I should have
remembered till this day. have
seen Cox only once when he was uader
the influence Of liquor. Had ever seen him
in that state on the bench or off should have
noticed 1t.
Redirect-H Judge Cox had said or done
anything out of the way wonld you have mo-
ticed it? I would. Hya
FRANCIS BAAsEN.
Reside In Waseca county and am lawyer
formerl J secrstary of state-and have known
respondent for twenty-five years. was pres
emit when the case of Mccormick VS.. Kelly
was being tried. This case was first tried
New Ulm. Was present both both days
and all the term of court. and while was
there Cox was perfectly sober. Nothing diff
ferent in appearance, conduct or manners from
usual. have seen Judge Cox previous to
his election when he was drunk, and If at this
term he had been at all intoxicated I would
have noticed it.
Cross-examined-My judgment was sus-
tanned by Judge Cox, and the higher court
overruled both. Witness would not say who
was right. CLaughter) Have you seen the
the Judge as drunk since as before? Objected
to and objection sustained. When? Objected
to and objection sustained.
WV. LILLY.
Am farmer at Sleepy Eye, and have known
Judge Cox for twelve years. was present at
the Kelly case, May term, 1880. Present two
days and part Of another day. was a Juror
in the case of Chadbora VS.. Hanson,
my Jury case. Decided it in half
an hour. State judges conditi
as to sobriety and inebriety. sat where
could see him and hear him and talked with
him, and saw no difference from first to last.
He was perfectly sober. =
Cross Examlned-I was present in court
room all the time except while absent In the
jury room. saw the Judge was perfectly
sober. The charge that Judge Cox was drunk
by this court, surprised me, since / had been
present and ought to have noticed it.
III. KELLY.
1 have resided at Sleepy Eye for fifteen
years. Am farmer and have known Judge
Cox for past twelve years. was the defend
ant in the Kelly case referred to. was in
court two suits before my case was called. ]
sat where could see him and beside my coun
sci, quite close, and as Juror in the Chadborn
case. Both as spectator and Juror, as to Cox's
sobriety and inebriety, should say sober; I
say so now. There was no difference from
first - last.
Cross Examined-My attention was not
called TO the judges condition during the trial,
but in the evening at the hotel, my lawyer,
Mr.. Webber, whom I instructed to grant
new trial, to grant it then and there. Weber
said Judge Cox was stopping over toward the
last; which he might have meant partial, or
tight. Weber did not say to me then, or
since, that the Judge was drunk, intoxicated
or tight.
Counsel proceeded to take evidence touching
specifications Q Art. II.
CHARLES SLOWER.
am butcher at New Ulm and have known
Judge Cox eight or nine years. have a
wagon to carry off offal, and Judge Cox never
rode in my wagon, swill cart, carriage or
buggy AZ any Clmes< Iacro Ii no Otner Dutcner
by my name in rev Ulm.
Cross.examined-How much of business
have you? ] kill five to ten cattle per week,
and use three hands. Chas. Meyer drove sNill
cart for me in 1879.
?. MANDERFELr.
Ny father was sheriff of Brown county in
1879. have known Cox i've or six years and
lived in the court house. remember the d.
vorce case of Cashier vs.. Cashier. Cox drove
up Tenth street and walked up the walk and
went up into the court room. At judges or
der / went down street to secure the attendance
of the sheriff or his deputy. When returned
found Cox and the lawyers on the court
house steps. saw no difference in the jud ge's
appearance. / had no doubts as to the
judges condition.
Cross examined-This occurred at special
term of court in May, 1879. I know it was
SO because my father said must fix up the
court At the time on the steps referred to,
he was perfectly sober, and never saw him
otherwise saw him always at every term of
court.
ALBERT SETTER.
was proprietor Of the Dakota House in
May, 1879, and while stopping with me he was
perfectly sober. He drove out into the coun-
try and did not see him after that.
Cross-examined: BE stopped at our house
when he was perfectly sober, and at one time