Mineral Point tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1869-1938, 1894-03-22

When court adjourned Wednesday
Attorney Jefris Tor the prosecution
was making an argument to the court
in favor Of the plaintiffs being per
mitted to offer evidence relative to
what the cost would he TO the state
to have 1900 sets of rosters printed
under tine STATE hitting contract the
defense Layin- y-yected to such testl-
mouy ON the ground that it was im-
material and that the court last Mon
day had virtually ruled it out Thurs
day morning Mr.. Jelris continued his
argument, asserting that plaintiffs had
the right 10 prove that they We're mis-
led 10y the representations Of defend.
ants that the contract of Sl9U per
volume would effect saving to the
state OF 81 per volume. His contention
was that the question as to whether
plaintiffs were 50 deceived was a
question of fact for the jury aud not
of law Tor the court lie did not con
tend that plaintiffs relied upon de
PENDANTS for knowledge OF the
profits which they themselves would
make by purchase Of the contract, but
were misled by the representations that
the contract was a good contract for
the state and imposing a less cost
upon the state than the state had been
accustomed to pay for such work;
that the alleged fraud by defendants
against the state Influenced the plant
IFS, and was therefore admissible in
evidence. He pointed out that de
PENDANTS who had cOuSpired TO cheat
the state would be willing 10 secure
the legal opinions of the four lawyer
defendants on the validity and legal
lty of law for the purpose
Of cheating and defraudng the
plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have offered
evidence to show that they be
lieyed aud relied upon these opinions
and representations of defendants, and
under the authorities the question as TO
whether or not the plaintiffs We're mis-
led by these opinions and representa-
tons was a question Of fact for the
jury to determine.
Mr. Olin made an exhaustive supple
mental argument with special refer
ence to the courts ruling Mon
day, stating that he understood
the court then held that the plaintiffs
knew as wen as defendants what the
profits under the contract would be,
and could not be misled as to that. To
this the plaintiffs agreed, and assum-
ing that the court had gone no farther
rp,,, tIfs r,,,rsal o1l-.3 .,ngi a ora rim
OF the other aspect of the case, namely,
that defendants claimed that plaintiffs
had not themselves acted in good faith,
while plaintiffs held that they were
mlsled by defendants as TO the charac-
ter of the contract by defendants con
cealiug the fraud against the state
with representations that the contract
was more advantageous TO the state
than other contracts for similar work
entered into by the state Mr.. Olin
held that this matter was material be
cause IL went TO the intent Of both de-
PENDANTS and plaintiffs In the case
The evidence had shown that Gen Doe
had told Col Clark and Gov Peck that
this contract was a good contract for
the state, and this had been done
rs proved by the testimony Of
Assistant Secretary Of State Leonard
and Printing Clerk Warden, after he
had examined carefully the state
printing contract and it was material
to have this state contract In evidence
to show that Gen. Doe had made false
representations TO plaintiffs as 20 the
contract and the fraud upon the state
He notified the counsel for defense that
there was ne dispute that plaintiffs
knew of tile large prof IS i'm The con-
tract which they had houlht an inter
est in. hnt he did not think the court
would say as d proposition Of law. rs
asked hy defendants counsel. that IL
was not material for he plaintiffs 60