Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-01-14


Redirect-This was regular proceeding be-
fore the district court; can't say he was in
toxicated to any great extent; have seen him
intoxicated often.
Recess.
afternoon Session.
Senator Castle in the chair called the court
to order. A resolution offered by Senator
Adams was read by the secretary to the effect
"that the court do now adjourn till 10 a. m.
Tuesday next"
Senator Kinds thought as quite number of
witnesses were present, it would be best to
proceed to business. Senator Wilson gave no.
tice of debate. Senator Campbell moved that
when we do adjourn it shall be to date above
mentioned.
Senator Wilson-Do you expect the wit
nesses are to remain here under expense, or 20
home and return next week? and called for the
ayes and nays.
Ayes, 10; nays, ID.
BE. wEBRR-CONTINUED.
was present at a term of court at st. Peter
in December, 1S79-Judge Cox presiding. The
condition of the judge, at the time a certain
road case was on trial. was intoxicated
don't recollect of the judge being in such con-
dition except at one time time while SO pre-
siding. Saw him also at the hotel intoxi-
Gated.
toxlcated? During the term of court, but
more particularly in the evening the latter
part of the session. Says the judge attempted
| to decide case at the evening session and
was requested by counsel to suspend his de-
cision. Witness frankly expressed his desire
| to succeed Judge Cox in case Judge Cox is re-
moved, and that he was in the hands of his
| friends. Witness had not seen him drink,
had not smelled his breath; but in my opin-
ion any man acquainted with Cox could not
| fail to notice the judge was intoxicated. In
| this particular instance he was only a little
more drunk than at former case.
Direst-Did you attend court in Brown
county in May? was one of the attorneys in
the case of Mccormick VS.. Kelly, and my
opinion is he was intoxicated both days, but
worse the second.
On cross-examination- During the first
dav during the Kelly case respondent was in
| toxicated. The judge was sober during the
entire term of court except while this case
was called, which was the last on the calendar.
His charge was very peculiar, and he is more
eccentric when under the influence of liquor
than when sober. The charge of the Judge to
the jury was so contrary to my judgment and
| law, that it had some weight with me in max
| ing up my opinion, that the judge was drunk.
Wasn't there another ruling which caused
you to think the Judge was intoxicated? Viz.
sells ''scarlet goods" as such, and it proved to
be "purple," in law it was guaranty. Wit
ness replied it was.
Witness admitted the case was fairly and
squarely tried and full justice given to both
parties interested, but that the giving the re-
quest of the opposing attorney was SO incon
sistent with his charge to the jury that it left
the above impression. 1t appeared to me the
Judges condition was such that it certainly
was apparent to every one who was acquaint-
ed with respondent.
Manager Arctander requested managers and
senate to not press the specifications, as there
were several abstruse questions of law in
volving constitutional rights requiring more
time to fully examine points and authorities.
Manager Dunn insisted that they proceed to
business and save time, ETC., that article II was
res adjudieata. All the formalities of sub
hitting the same and demurrer had heretofore
been argued, and that the management pro-
posed to prosecute the case in whatsoever or
der they, in their judgment, thought best.
Counsel Allis stated explicitly that the
point in question is, eve object to the exam
lining of explicit testimony under Article 17''
at the present time, and on motion of Senator
Powers it was decided that no evidence will
be taken till after Monday next touching the
SUtCllCdtlOuS vi ATblCIc LIZ IIOSCCuUiOu luCu
proceeded to take up Article IS and specifica-
tions, and counsel for respondent raised the
same objection, which was argued pro and
con, the chair deciding that the senate, in its
article of Impeachment, had already disposed
of it, and said if no objection was here raised,
the counsel would proceed to take testimony
pertaining to Article IL.
Witness attended all terms of court at New
Ulm during the past three years, and fire.
f1x,c into ofod Int ~
him oftener sober than I saw him drunk.
Direct-Was it his habit when he came to
New Ulm to be sober or drunk, or occasion
ally drunk? Objected to and objection sus-
tained-being areiteration of preceding inter-
rogatory. Witness stated Judge Cox was
Extremely drunk" when the jury came in
one evening about o'clock at the May term.
Respondent talked rather foolishly-lost the
use of his lower jaw, face looked stolid, etc.
In case of of Wilks VS.. Wilks the judge
fined John Wilks $1O0 for not paying over
certain money, and sfterward raised the fine
to $3.50, then $500, then $3.50, then 81 900 and
81 $50, urging that he proposed to have the
dignity of the court respected, etc. After
ward, by the influence of friends, he made a
| new order, placing the fine at $500, and giving
him thirty days to comply with the law.
Witness recoliected another case-Coster VS.,
Coster, at New Ulm. 1t was very hot day,
and the judge requested "John" (WiIks) to 60
and get some beer, and gave him so cents to
| buy it with. The judge, attorneys and wit
nesses drank it, and sent or threatened to send
| the man to Jail, remarking he was sorry, say
| ing: "John. I've got to lock you up" Court
did not adjourn in form, but simply broke up.
Cross-examioed- Judge was intoxicated
when he came and remained so all through
that term of court, at II a. m. the judge ar
rived, having driven fourteen miles, from
Sleepy Eye, jumped out of his buggy, went up
and opened court, without delay; witness
couldn't recollect or specify any particulars;
he wasn't sleepy; he could not describe his
face, eyes, walk, conversation or manner that
signifed he was drunk, only that he was drunk;
on the evening of the trial he was excessive
ly drunk" and in the day time ''very drunk"
The Judge came in about9 p. M, and after
the verdict was rendered witness wanted stay
of proceedings. The judge remarked for him
to make such motion, and remarked, 81 will
decide it in minute" Cross-examined: Wit
ness could not swear that the judge was drunk
on the second day of the term, although In
former evidence he stated explicitly he was
drunk every day Of that term Of court, This