Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1894-03-22
MR.. IEFFR1Es, ARGUMENT

nectlon that plalntl1S had the rlgnb 10
prove that they were misled by the
represent atoms of defendants that the
contract of 81 80, per volume would
effect saving to the stare Of 81 per
volume. He cited authorities to sus-
tain this position and the claim that The
question as to whether plaintiffs were
so deceived was question of fact for
the jury. he did not contend that
plaintiffs relied upon defendants for a
knowledge of the profits wnich they
themselves would make by purchase of
the contract, but we're misled by the
repre- sensations thst the contract was
good contract for the state. and impos-
ing a less cost upon the state than the
state had been accustomed to psy for
such work. That the alleged fraud by
defendants against the state influenced
the plaintiffs and was therefore admis-
sible IS evidence, Mr. Jeffries also
al gued, Sustaining his position with
more reading from the books. He
pointed out that defendants who mad
con spired 70 cheat the state would be
willing TO secure the legal opinions of
the four lawyer defendants on the val
idity and legality of the contract for
the purpose Of cheating and defrauding
the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs had offered
evidence to show that they believed and
relied upon these opinions and repre-
sensations of defendants, and under the
authorities the question as to whether
or not the plaintiffs were misled by
these opinions and representations was
a question of fact for the jury to deter
mine. AS to whe her the alleged fraud
was material 10 this case, counsel ar
gued that the wiscst latitude was given
by the courts in admitting evidence on
a charge OF conspiracy becau~e it was
impossible to prove conspiracy bg
direct evidence unless conspirator
should come in and testify agairsf his
co-conspirators.
Judge Siebecker said there was no
question as to the general propositions
advanced on this line Of argument, and
Mr. Jeffr,es presented authorities on =
few spe,isa propositions going TO the
question of admission of evidence of
collateral fscts in the effort to prove
fraud and conspiracy.
Mr.. DIN followed Mr.. Jeffries with
reference 10 the former ruling of the
cour'. He stated that he
understood the coait held that
the plaintiffs knew ms well as defend
ants what the profits under the con-
tract would oe and could not be misled
as to that To this the plaintiffs agreed
and assuming that The court bad gone
no farther than this counsel asked COLI
sIderation 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 misled by defendants as to
the character OF contract by defendants
concealing the fraud against the state
with representations that the contract
was more advant gsous to the state
than other contracts for similar work
entered into by the state.
KNEW OF THE LARGE PROFITS.
Mr.. DIN held thst this mater was
material because it went to the intent
of both defendants aud plaintiffs in the
case. The evidence had shown that
Gen. Doe had told Col. Clark and COY.
Peck that this contract was a good
contract for the state, and this had
been done by him, as shown by the
evidence Of Leonard and Warden, after
/ he lad examined carefully the state
printing contract aud it wSs material to
have this state contract in evidence to
show that Gen. Doe had made ia sc
represent ,tiors to plaintiffs as 10 the
contract ana the fraud upon the state
I He notified the couns for defense that
there was no dispute that plaintiffs
knew Of the large profits in the con
trace which they had bought an inter
est in; but he did not think the couri
would say as proposition OF llN, as
asked by the defendants counsel, that
il was not material for the plaintiffs t1
show taat they had been misled by the
representations Of defendants that il
this ork had been done by the state
printer it would have cost the state
$50. 900 more.
EXCUSED THE JURY.
To question from Mr.. Luse, if Mr..
DIN did not consider the style of bind
ing competent evidence. the latter
turned and said be not only did. but
that plaintiffs proposed to 60 on and
show that as a matter of fact there was