St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-11-08

on the Sd of August. and If Mr.. Blaisdell
did not express his Willingness to pay it,.
The defense objected and heated ar
gument arose.
The defense claimed that the ques-
ton was competent as going to show
that Mr.. BlaiSdelPS testimony that he
was not at that time on more than Sl5.-
900 of COllOm'S paper was not true
that he had 10 accurate knowledge of
his own signature, and that it also tended
10 show that Ccllom's alleged confession
that all of Mr.. BIaisdells signatures on
his paper were forged. if he made such
a confession, was not true.
The prosecution eontended that it
made no difference if Mr.. BlaiSdell had
even paid 100000 of the forged paper;
that under no circumstances was the
evidence proper or admissible.
Judge Shaw replied at length and be-
came quite heated and eloquent i'll his
argument. He said it was anfmportant
point for the defense, ana would con-
Stantly come out from now out, and
then he declared in an excited manner
that if the defense were ruled against
on this point the defendant would be
stripped naked ana defenSeleSS before
the court and his enemies.
He said that the court was in
fiuenced by no other motives than
TO do exact and equal justice 10 all par
ties; that the question was an import
ant one and that he would prefer that
it be withdrawn at that time; that he
would endeavOr TO get Judge Young or
Judge Lochren 10 act with him IN the
morning, hear the arguments aud de-
eide the point.
Judge Shaw apOlogized for the
warmth of his manner and attributed 1t
to the excitement.
Judge Hooker said that he had taken
no offenSe at anything that counsel had
said; that he was pleased to see them
try the case with energy and vim.
Mr.. Wilson said that the defense did
not wish it understood that the defense
questioned the fairness or honesty of
the court, and Judge Hooker said he
had not entertained any such idea, so
the witness was withdrawn from the
stand and the question will come up
tins morning.
Mr.. Cotton, cashier of the Peoples
bank. was called and testified that he
thought the disputed signature was
genuine.
He was put through like cross eX-
animation, but also failed to find much
difference between the questioned sig
natures and those admitted TO be
genuine.
The witness admitted that his mother
held some Of the Collom- Blaisdell
paper.
Alexander Campbell, with S. c. Gale
q Co., insurance agents, of Minneapo-
lis. was called. and handed Exhibit IL,
which is satisfaction of a mortgage
executed by Mr.. BlaiSdell, to which
Mr.. Campbell was witness.
He said that the paper was drawn up
in 5. G. Gale d Co.'s office; that he
took it to Mr.. BlaisdelPs house and saw
him sign it; that it was then sent to the
Office of the register of deeds for record,
and returned to s. G. Gale & Co.'s
Office.
c. A. Eaton, of the same concern, was
called and cOrrOborated Mr.. CampbelI's
statement as TO the paper. except in the
matter of signing, which he did not see
done. He said he thought the paper
had been il S. c. Gale q Co.'s vault
ever since it was recorded.
The signature to this paper more
closely resembles the disputed one than
any other in the case, and it is sup
posed that the object of this testimony
is to show that COllOm never had it in
his possession. so that he could not
have traced the questioned signature
from it.
At the close of Mr.. Eaton's testimony
the court adjourned until 10 O'clock this
morning.