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

$4,000 more.
Attorney Luse having asked Mr.. Olin
IL 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 90 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
awarded a contract which did not diff
fer from the state contract III require
ments, and therein had done an illegal
act in pursuance Of the conspiracy
charged.
Attorney Flanders, in speaking on
the other side of the proposition held
that plaintiffs could not show as sup
port of a rule Of the Wisconsin su-
preme court or any other supreme
court q single case similar TO the pres
eut one where such rules as We're
asked for in the admission of evidence
We're allowed. In equity cases such
latitude might be allowed, where the
court of last resort could sift the chatf
frcm the mass, but defendants in This
case were charged with crime. The
attorney declared there were no Spaci-
ftatlOns in the state printing sontracE
excepting as it referred - tie statutes
giving the schedule. The proof can
out Of the mouth of plaintiffs Gibbs,
when he testified to making bids for
the state printing and that to make
such bids must have had knowledge
OF the requirements Of the state print
ing laws. Plaintiffs knew more. They
had come upon the stand, and testified
that they knew of the enormous profits;
and they come and ask to be permitted
to give evidence to show they were
deceived
I Judge Siebecker said plaintiffs ad-
mitted they knew of the profits but
claimed they believed that under the
state contract it would have cost the
state a dollar more per volume. Reply
ing Mr.. Flanders said that plaintiffs
knew Of the alleged attempt to steal
5000 from the state; knew it better
than any one else, and We're willing
to assist; but failing, come in with a
CHILLI VI AAAAAlf anu q lis III " ANNSf q
because one Of the defendants had told
them that somebody else would have
stolen $4,000 from the state. Coun-
sci would search the books long for au-
thorities to support such a position
After Plaintiff Tracy had had it
Wrung from his reluctant lips that
The profits were exorbitant, the plain
tits came in and asked to offer evil
dence as to cost by a contract which
had no bearing upon their
knowledge of the facts. Mr.. Flanders
argued further that the false repreSen-
tations which were alleged must be
material to make the evidence of their
falsity, and ne held that the false
I representations alleged against Clark
were not material TO the alleged decep-
ton.
The judges vital ruling was then
made as follows:
In determining this question. we
must not lose sight Of the fact that this
is an action by the plaintiffs to recover
as against the defendants upon the
ground Of a fraud committed by the
defendants, and not simply upon the
ground that the defendants were guilty
Of committing a wrong against the
state of Wisconsin.
las 1 stated in the beginning of this
trial when the amendment was pro
posed to the complaint, that is the ma
ture Of this action, and so far as the
acts and doings Of the defendants as
10 the state Of Wisconsin are incidental
and material TO establish that ground
of action, so far the proof is material
Whether uf no. the court has power
t. exc uda or permit this evidence or
give il irtG probation as a rule of law,
/ take it that ii is beyond controversy
that the nature of tho action and the
state Of the proof must be taken into
( consideration, 50 far as the party is
F concerned who seeks to have it intro
dUced; snd that in view of such con
sruCtion by the court that question
must be determined. In this view Of
Il / musts rule upon this question on
tie proof brought into court by the
plinIfEs to sustain their cause Of
action.
80, then, 1 think that this evidence
cannot be material in the respect that
it Is tho ingredient to prove that the
defendants We're guilty Of a fraud
against the plaintiffs, in that the repre-
sgDtation made was the direct ground
that induced the plaintiffs 10 part with
their money.
The proof given by the plaintiffs
establishes beyond question that they
We're fully aware and had full kuowl-
edge 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 de-
PENDANTS, represented TO then that if
the state printer did this work that the
cost to the state would be still greater
Upon that question the knowledge pos
sessed by the plaintiffs, and the sur
rounding circumstances which were
within their knowledge have put this