Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1894-03-02

AIDllS1n, i cD- Ab.-S1Of1ly AFTER III
O'Clock this morning the roster contract
case was called for trial by Judge r.
@. Siebecker in the Dane county circuit
court. Attorneys John NJ. DIN, of
Madison, and NJ. g. Jeffris, of James
vile, Of counsel for the plaintiffs, were
OF hand bright and early, loaded down
with documents galore. Their clients,
George and Robe Dow, w. A. Tracy
and w. J. Z. McFail were also Oh
hand early. All Of the defendants,
Gov. Peck, Attorney General O'Connol,
Assistant Attorney General Clancy,
eXPrivate Secretary Clark, cX-Ad-
jutant General Doe and Senator Bash
ford We're there as were all of their
attorneys with the exception of Col.
CIark's WinanS and Hyzer, of james
Vile, and Il. T. Villas, one Of the gov
crnor'S attorneys. The other defend
ants attorneys are j. &. Flanders, Of
Milwaukee, Sutherland Il NuIan, of
GAINESVILLE, and H. w. ChynOweta,
Burr w Jones, II. NJ. La Toilette, +.
j. Lamb, and Il. j. Stevens, Of Madison.
An accomplishment of surely great
moment was the securing of IL jury
the first day Of such an important trial.
At the opening Of court Clerk Feb
landt called the jury roll with the re
suit that but twenty odd were found
10 be present. AS soon as the judge
had called the case, Attorney Olin
asked permission to add an allegation
to the complaint to the effect that the
defendants conSpired to cheat and de
fraud the state and as Il necessary
cheat and defraud the plaintiffs in this
action.
Mr.. Chynoweth said that he did not
know but the plaintiffs had concluded
that they could not show conspiracy
to defraud the plaintiffs, but might
have enough left to show conspiracy
to defraud the state. The two theories
were ut right angles. 1t might be that
the very failure of the defendants to
conspre to defraud the state conSti-
tuted the conspiracy to defraud the
plaintiffs.
1t was Il point which the plaintiffs
attorneys did not care enough about
winning To spend much time i'll argu-
ment. Mr.. Olin stated that the official
positions of the defendants and their
officials acts, as shown in all the plead
inSS and evidence, involved this ques-
ton necessarily. He should not ask
or expect to recover unless it was
shown that the defendants conSpired
to defraud the plaintiffs, but the at
tempt to defraud the state was Il nee
esS;Lry part of that conspiracy.
Mr.. Jeliris explained that the new al
legation was probably fully covered in
the complaint, but they wanted to make
sure of it. He wished to inform the
gentlemen, and this was Il proper time,
that they We're not trying this case for
newspaper reports and the defense
would lind it out. They We're trying
this ease for $4,000, and il, us Mr.
Chynoweth said, the allegation was OPP
posed to the recovery of the money,
the defense could not complain
The court denied the amendment as
unnecessary and it might lead to mis-
conception. If he understood the com
plant, the allegation was that defend
ants eonspired to defraud plaintiffs.
If the testimony should show that there
was 4 conspiracy to defraud the state,
is was purely a matter of evidence and
would stand as such.
There was lull in the proceedings
ut this point and Judge Siebeckcr was
about u adjourn court until Il time in
the afternoon when trains from all
Ii
absent jurors 10 the city. But it
was Attorney Flanders time to spring
4 surprise. He wanted the court to
consider how many strikes the defense
would be entitled to in the selection of
4 jury. He said as far as he was con
cerned, representing Gov. Peck, he
wanted three strikes himself. Mr..
DIN argued ut length against each of
the defendants claiming such right.
This was one case, not two, or five
cases. Here We're half dozen
plaintiffs and half Il dozen defendants.
The plaintiffs had but three strikes. If
the defense w;ls allowed eighteen
strikes where would the plaintiffs
stand for trial:
Mr.. Flanders replied in advocacy OF
the separate rights of the defendants
in the case. He argued that each de-
PENDANT having separate and distinct
defense 10 one general cause of action
was entitled to three challenges, and
especially for Gov. Peck he insisted
that the interests of defendants were
adverse and it would be utterly inn
possible to make one answer to the
plaintiffs complaint with its separate
allegations which affected some of the
defendants and not others. Mr.. Jones
also argued for separate rights for
tbs. defendants, as did Mr.. Chynoweth
and Mf.-Lamb.
The court explained that he under
stood that the complaint set forth a
wrongful and wilful purpose to de
f,and. and the conspiracy was merely
an incident to that purpose, and that
the i,ny might if it so pleased find
arainst only one of the defendants.
Mr.. Jeffris replied to the several ar
,,n,ants with citations, and was fol
,sared nv Mr.. DIN, who declared that
~ lo'' s,sn,idar case had been found in au