St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-01-31
CAT CAME BACK
The Very Next Day, Cause He
Couldn't Stay Away;
See!
G. THOMPSON RETURNS
To Establish His Connection
With the st. Paul
Dispatch,
THAT is If He HAS ANY.
The Libel Suit Develops a
Whole Lot Of Funny
Things.
THAT is If He HAS AM

He came out of his hole, in which
he had been Secreted to avoid the
service of a subpoena upon him,
and put in an appearance in court
Yesterday. He was wanted Tor the
purpose of answering some questions
regarding his relation to the ST.
Paul Dispatch-if it could be ascer-
tanned that he had any knowledge
of the existence of such newspaper.
But when he appeared in court yes
terday his attorney, Mr.. Mum, was
too busy sweating, guessing ana
cross-eXamining Mr.. Palmer, the
pIaintiff in the libel suit, to allow
the attorneys for the other side to
ask Mr.. Thompson the questions
they desired to have him answer, SO
he retired, with the understanding
that he will be on hand when wanted.
Yesterday was the third day Of the
trial, and the second day of Plaintiff
Palmer's cross examination, and if
the exercise made Mr.. Mum sweat
and guess, he had the satisfaction OF
knowing that the witness was dong
a little sweating and guessing MIN
self. 1t was a catch as-catch-can
wrestle, and every hold went, but
Attorneys lockwood and O'Brien,
Palmer's seconds, kept close watch
on the struggle, and interpGsed an
objection whenever it became appar-
ent that their man was getting III
tie the worst Of it.
The trial has excited more interest
among attorneys than any that has
taken place in a long time. This is
due to the
Sharp Controversies
that are constantly arising between
the attorneys. These sallies fire.
ouently cause a laugh among the
spectators and jurors, and Judge
Brill himself is often constrained to
allow a smile bordering on a laugh
to steal over his genial counte-
nance.
Last evening Attorney O'Brien OBJ
iected to a question as to Whethef
Attorney Dowd drew the complaint
in the case. claiming that it was not
material
81 think it is material" returned
Attorney Mum.
81 should like to know how the
counsel expects to make it materl-
al" suggested Mr.. O'Brien.
I'VE are not called upon to furnish
knowledge for the other side" re-
marked Mr.. Mum, sarcastlcally'
{ mo, but where the object is so
deem that ordinary mortals cannot
fathom it we have a right to be
informed" returned Mr.. OBrien,
still more sarcastically. ct may be
our misfortune that we are con-
structed mentally weak, neverthe-
less the state has given US authority
| TO practice law and make living at
it. know 1 paid $3.50 for my
sheepskin."
81 paid $3.50 for NINE said Mr.
Mum, laughing.
81 am sorry, but you did not get
! the worth of your money, retorted
Mr.. O'Brien dryly, and then gen
uine Hibernian smile lit up his whole
face.
The court sustained the objection.
The storm-center of the battle all
the way through has been the eff
forts of Attorney Mum to
Force the Plaintiff
| to prove the defense on the cross
examination. When court con-
vened in the morning Judge Brill
announced that he would sustain
for the present the objection of the
plaintiff to allowing the defense to
go into the question of the issu-
ance of a certain circular to the
papers in which the alleged libelous
article appeared.
Attorney Mum asked witness if
the Philadelphia Times was includ-
ed in the list of papers, some fifty
in all, against which claims for dam
ages were made.
mot unless the filing of suit be
construed as making a claim" an
| sWered the witness.
Then you brought suit against
the Times, did your" asked Mr..
Mum.
Mr.. O'Brien objected to the ques-
ton as irrelevant, immaterial and
not the best evidence, and the
court sustained the objection.
''Then in so far as the bringing OF
the suit for damages could be con.
strued as a claim, you made de-
mand for reparation, did your
asked Mr.. Mum.
"The same objection" put in Mr.
lockwood, but the court seemed tc
be inclined to allow the question.
Mr.. OBrien then made a very
spirited argument against the theory
of compelling the plaintiff to prove
the defense. The letter-with refer
ence to which the examination was
progressing at the time-was in evi
dence, he said, and showed for itself
but
1t Was Not Right
to allow the cross-eXanlination t.
go outside the question to aid in es
tablishing which the letter was in
troduced.
|
lection, and also sustained objection
to a number Of questions that fol
lowed in the same connection.
The defense then gave up this lint
of examination, and went into tn,
question as to the magnitude ant
Importance of the business in which
the plaintiff was engaged at thu
time of the publication of the alleged
libelous article, with a view to show
ing that his business was not of sucl
consequence as to suffer material.
from the publication.
Witness testified that he was en-
gagged in an extensive brokerag,
business in London, and gave a lis
of the prospective deals his firm
had on hand at the time There wa
a great deal of sharp sparring be
tween Mr.. Mum and the witness