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

IN requirements, and therein had done
an illegal act in pursuance of the con-
spiracy charged. MIR. DIN completed
his argument at 1890 o'clock, and
Judge Siebecker excused the jury from
sitting during the remainder of the ar
gument. Saying that one of the Jurors
was not well and this was question of
law.
MIR. Flanders argued the question for
the defense. He held that plaintiffs
could not show a support of rule of
the Wisconsin Supreme court, a single
case similar to the present one where
such rules as were asked for in the adj
mission of evidence were allowed. In
equity cases such latitude might be al
lowed, when the court of last resort
could sift the chaff from the mass, but
defendants in this case were charged
with crime. He claimed that the coun-
sci had wasted time in talking outside
of the questions raised. He said they
were in effect, arguing fer the same
ground they were ruled from Monday,
to show the intent of plaintiffs which
was the exact purpose of putting Mr..
Raymer upon the stand MOI lay to ties
tify as TO the cost of the first edition Of
rosters. 1t was not niece ,sary, lie said
for him to rlnsack the offices of Madi.
son and bring in the contents of their
libraries TO maintain accepted propo-
sitions as old as the common law.
Mr.. Flanders to-, k up the cases cited
by plaintiffs attorneys. pointing out
the dissimilarity in the questions at issue
raised in tn sm, and claimed that Mr.
Jeffries had been arguing on questions
on which there had been no contention,
and opposing positions which no sane
man ever had taken.
WANTED TO SHOW DECEPTION
Counsel, after a side controversy
with DIN and Jeffries, took up the
state printing contract aud showed
that there were no specifications in it
excepting rs it referred to the statutes
giving the schedule. The proof came
out of the mouth of Plaintiff Gibbs,
when he testified to making bids for The
state pr ming and that TO make such
bids he must have had knowledge Of
The requirements Of the stats printing
laws Plaintiffs knew more. They
had come upon the stand. from the
parson down to the professor" and
testified that Il e7 knew of the enor-
nous profits; and they come and ask to
be permitted to give evidence to show
they were deceived.
Judge Siehecker said plaintiffs ad-
mitted they knew OF the profits but
claimed they believed that under the
state contract it would have cost the
state 81 more per volume.
WERE WILLING TO HELP.
Mr.. Flanders said be would come to
that. Plaintiffs knew of the alleged
attempt to steal sos, 600 from the state
knew 1t better than any enc else, anc
We're willing TO assist; but failing, come
in with claim of fraud, and right tC
recover because one of the defendant,
had told them that somebody else
would have st,len S125.0o0 from The
state. Counsel would search the book.
long for authorities to support such i
position. After Plaintiff Tracy hac
''had it wrung from his reluctans lips
that The profits were exorbitant, iii,
plan ifs came in and asked 10 offel
evidence as to cost bv a contract whict
had no bearing upon their knowledg,
of the facts.
Mr.. Flanders srSued that the falls,
representations which were alleged
must be material 70 make the evidenc,
OF their falsity material, and he helC
that the false representations alleged
against Clark were not material TO tht
alleged deception.
THE COURTS RULING
Judge Siebecker then ruled on ih,
admission of this testimony as follows
In determining this question we mus
not lose sight OF the fact that this is al
action hy the plaintiffs to recover a.
| against the defendants upon the grount
of fraud committed by the defend
ants, and not simply upon the grounC
that the defendants were guilty Of com
y1lttipg wrong against the state d
/ Wisconsin
As / stated ia the beginning of tbr
trial when the amendment was pro
posed to the complaint, that is the ma
| tur of this action, and so far as the
acts and doings Of the defendants as t
the state of Wisconsin are identical ana
material to establish that ground Of
action, so far the proof is material
Whe Their or not the court has power &c
exclude or permit this evidence, or give
it Interpretation as a rule of law. / take
IT that il is beyond controversy that the
nature of the action and the STA of the
pro 4 must be taken into consideration,