Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1894-03-22

decision from that tribunal may be
commenced Feb. % and continued Is
days, one week of which time was,
however, wasted as a result Of a juror
expressing an opinion on the merits
of the case.
When court adjourned Wednesday
Attorney Jeffris for 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 be to the state
to have $4,000 sets Of rosters printed
under the state printing contract, the
defense having objected to such testI-
mOny on the ground that it was i'm
material and that the court last Mon
day had virtually ruled it out. Thurs
day morning Mr.. JetfriS continued his
argument, asserting that plaintiffs had
the right to prove that they were mis-
led by the representations o. ue4.-.~.,
ants that the contract of $1.90 per
volume would effect a saving to the
state of 81 per volume. His contention
was that the question as to whether
plaintiffs were SO deceived was a
question Of fact for the jury and not
Of law for the court. lie did not con-
tend that plaintiffs relied upon de-
PENDANTS for a 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 conspired to cheat
the state would be willing to secure
the legal opinions of the four lawyer
defendants on the validity and legal
ity of a law for the purpose
of cheating and defrauding the
evidence to show that they be-
lieved and relied upon these opinions
and representations of defendants, and
under the authorities the question as to
whether or not the plaintiffs were mis-
led by these opinions and representa-
tons was a question Of fact for the
jury to determine.
MIR. Olin made an exhaustive supple
mental argument, with special refer
ence to the courts ruling Mon
the court then held that the plaintiffs
knew as we'll 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
than this, counsel asked consideration
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 charac-
ter of the contract by defendants con-
cealing 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 it 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,
as 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 to the
contract and the fraud upon the state.
He notified the counsel for defense that
there was no dispute that plaintiffs
knew of the large profits in the con-
tract which they had bought an inter
est in; but he did not think the court
would say as a proposition of law, as
asked by defendants counsel, that it
was not material for the plaintiffs 10
show that they had been misled by the
representations Of defendants that if
this work had been done by the state
printer it would have cost the state
$4,000 more
Attorney Luse having asked Mr.. Olin
if he did not consider the style Of bind
ing competent evidence, the latter de
clared he not only did, but that plain
tiffs proposed to go on and show that
as a matter of fact there was no diff
ference in the binding selected and that
covered by the state contract, and that
the defendants had in fact drawn and
F., awarded a contract which did not diff
fer from the state contract in require