New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1894-01-31

the 5th and visited Madigan's office. On
the road Halgeson showed the note to
| his wife. but at that time it twas not filled
out and bore only the signature of Mo-
gen. This testimony was similar to what
both Halgeson and Mogen gave to the
grand jury in November. Arriving at
Madigan's office bond was drawn up
and the name of Peter N. Romnes was
attached by Halgeson. Madigan then
drew up an affidavit and swore to it be-
| fore Justice of the Peace in which he
alleges that he was the attorney of Rom
mes, that said Ramnes had a cain of
$500 against Halgeson and Mogen for
money loaned and that Halgeson & Mo-
gen we're about to secrete their property
with the view of defrauding their credi-
tors. 1t was in signing this affidavit and
swearing thereto, that Madigan commit
ted perjury.
The defense put up the claim that
Romnes was in the office on the 5th and
authorized Madigan to commence suit
on the 5000 note. To strengthen this
story they introduced the testimony of
Anna Schorregge Schneider, who at the
time was stenographer in Madigan's Of
fee. She stated that she saw Romnes
on the day in question and heard HIM
tell Madigan to commence suit. When
asked to pick the man out in the audi
ence she did SO readily, but the fact that
Halgeson admits that resigned the bond,
that Romnes' name appearsin in Halgeson's
handwriting and that Mrs. Schneider s
name appears on the same document as
a witness to the signature of Romnes,
proves her mistake and no doubt weak =
ened her evidence before the jury. And
aside from her testimony there was no
evidence to prove that Romnes visited
the office on the day referred to. On
the contrary, Romnes, Halgeson, Mrs.
Romnes, Mrs. Halgeson and Romnes'
partner all swore to the fact that Rom
mes remained at home.
Another interesting feature of the evi-
donce was the receipt introduced by the
defense to prove that Madigan had paid
Romnes the amount allowed by the as
signee on the $500 claim. This receipt
was written by Madigan in one kind of ink
the signature, 'P. Romnes," is in another
and the acknowled gmentin still another,
The signature of one witness appears in
the same ink as the body of the receipt
while the signature of the other is ia the
same ink as the acknowledgement which
is written by Madigan, and signed by
the witness who is also a Justice of the
peace. The states attorney concluded
from all these pecullarities that the ac.
acknowledgement was made at different
time than the receipt itself. The alleged
| signature of Romnes was examined and
compared to that of his original signature
in the record of marriage licences for
Renville county by Bankers Dickinson,
Setter, E. G.. Koch, VIM. E. Koch and
c. W. H. Heidemann, and all declared
that the two were not written by the
same person. Many leading citizens of
Redwood Falls were also put on the
stand to impeach the reputation for truth
and veracity of the justice who took the
acknowledgment. The testimony of all
was to the effect that his reputation was
bad. The receipt was purported to have
been signed on tie 18th, but Romnes
swore that he was not in Redwood that
day, as did also his wife and Halgeson
and his wife. Halgeson also swore that
Madigan afterwards admitted to him
that he had never paid over the money
and when Mogen requested that a SETTLE
ment be effected, Madigan is reported tv
have told him that he shouldn't shoot off
his mouth too much or he would fix him
plenty.
Clerk of Court Byran, when put on the
stand. testified that all the proofs of
claims in the assignment of Halgeson &
Mogen, together with the releases had
been filed in his Office by Madigan as
attorney for the assignee. These were
all loaned to him under an order of
the court, but when he returned them the
release of the $500 claim was missing.
This testimony in particular seemed to
carry with it great weight.
The arguments to the jury commenced
Friday morning at T. o'clock. Attorney
S. L. Pierce talked for nearly four hours,
spending most of his time in reviewing
the evidence, but occasionally rebuking
the manufactured testimony of the defense
and lashinU Ma6iran in +no co,,o,c4