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

duced the plaintiffs to part with their
money.
The proof given by the plaintiffs es :
tablished beyond question that they
were fully aware and had full know
ledge of the profits in publishing this
roster under the contract as they en-
tered into it. They now come and say
that they were deceived by reason of
the fact that Mr.. Clark. one of the
defendants, represented to them that If
the state printer did this work that the
cos. to the state would be still greater.
Upon that question the knowledge no.
ssessed by the plaintiffs. and the sur
rounding circumstances which were
within their knowledge. have put this
case where the law will not permit them
to say that that representation is one
upon which they had a right to RELY.
but to the contrary. 1t was a repre-
sentation which, after they knew of the
enormous profit on the contract as thew
made it. would be wrong against the
state, and came TO them pregnant with
such wrong. and they are bound by it.
Upon the other question as to wheth-
er they have a right to say that il is a
conspiracy against the state, the reason
which suggests itself to my mind and
the rules which think must control it.
are these. That these very facts which
the plaintiffs contend will prove a fraud
against the state on the part of the
defendants are the very facts that were
within the knowledge of the plaintiffs:
and if it does not prove fraud against
the state, the plaintiffs were possessed
of that knowledge Just as well as the
defendants; and that being the case,
they cannot come into court of Justice
and say that they were deceived by rea-
son Of it, when their own intelligence
and prudence ought TO have suggested
TO them, as we'll as to the defendants.
that it was tainted and therefore that
they had no right to relv upon it
Such being the import of this proof,
in view of the established facts of the
plaintiffs case. it becomes a matter of
law that it is lmmaterial, and that being
the situation here. | must sustain the
objection upon that
! make this lengthy ruling because,
as / suggested 10 counsel, | am fully
aware of the import of this ruling as
going to tae gist of the action.
RAlMER AND M'FAIL RECALLED.
After tie ruling of the court the Jury
WAS recalled and plaintiffs counsel
asked witness Raymer questions di-
rected for the purpose Of showing by
the record the testimony ruled out bv
the court and the exceptions taken by
the plaintiffs. The questions went to
Mr.. kaymer's knowledge OF printing
contracts and the cost of the proposed
rosters under the present state printing
contract, e'c; also as TO the cost of
printing the formtr edition of the
rosters.
When Mr.. Raymer was excused Mr..
Jeffris talked with Mr.. Flanders. and
MIR. Flanders talked with other counsel
] for defendants, after which Mr.. MFail
i was recalled TO the stand and asked bv
MIR IaFollettee TO confirm his previous
testimony, that he had not retained
Mr.. O'Connor as his private attorney
and did not SD regard him. Witness
was further asked concerning his talk
with Charles Morris at the time the
opinion OF Morris & Morris was given
him on The roster law, with reference to
his acting with the Bows on the advice
of MIR. Bashford.
George w. Bird was call d and tes-
tilted 10 his visits to the governors
office as attorney for The Democrat
company, Col. Clark's refusal to show
him the contract and subsequent meet
ings with Gov. PECK.
Al the opening this afternoon MIR.
Flanders lei Mr.. Bid go with a ques-
ticn as 10 whether he was on friendly
terms with the governor, and immedi-
ately moved non suit. saving he did
net care to argue the motion unless d.
rected by the court.
Attorney DIN said the plaintiffs did
not wish to argue the matter and
Jadge Siebecker instructed Attorney
Flanders to state upon what grounds
he moved for non-suit.
REASONS FOR NON SUIT.
The atorr els for The defense engage
ed in consultation for few moments
over the matter heo Mr.. FLINDERS
presented the reasons for asking the
non-suit as follows:
First On the ground that the evi.
dence does nos warrant verdict a.
gainst either defendant.
showing and on the testimony adduced
by them, their acts in acquiring an in
lerest in the contract on which thew r.
lied were contrary TO public policy
Judge Siebecker asked if counsel de-
sired 10 present any thing further to the
court Attorney Stevens for Mr.. Bash
ford, st tied Inst they were prepared
with authorities TO show that the law of
1887 was constitutional and the con
tract as made was valid
The court stated that if counsel did
not care to argue other questions 10 the
case, the court did lot care to hear
arguments on that question alone.
Judge Siebecker then announced that
under the circumstances. upon the evil
dence submitted. and in the line with
the indication of his ruling this morning
the motion for a non-suit must be grant
ed
Plaintiffs counsel took exception in
= al form with motion for a now trial,
/ s nd ninety DAYS were allowed nv the