The Redwood gazette., 1896-04-02
ARGUED THE PETITION!
S. l., Pierce Admits all Statements,
But Believes That Perjury
Was Committed.
Peck Puts in a Hot Affidavit and
Gets SCorChed. Decision
Reserved.

The petition of exCounty Attorney
M. M. Madigan to annul the convic-
ton whereby he was sent to Saltwater,
to set aside the verdict and annul the
sentence leading to the same, was
heard by Judge B. F. Webber in
chambers at New Ulm on last Satur-
day morning, continuing into the af-
ternoon. Judge Webber took the
matter under advisement. A decision
is expected at any time.
A. G. Dolliff appeared as attorney
for the petitioner and spent some time
in bringing out the points bearing out
the petition, while County Attorney
Clague appeared on behalf of the
State, his main position being that in
asmuch as the case had passed out of
the hands of Judge Webber and
into the Supreme Court, where an
application for new trial had been
denied, Judge Webber had no juris-
diction over the case. Following the
maintenance of this position Mr..
Clague presented two remarkable af-
fdavits. One of them was the affida-
Wit of S. l.. Pierce, who was prosecut-
ing attorney for Redwood county in
connection with the prosecution and
conviction of Mr.. Madigan. In this
affidavit made by Pierce the latter ad-
mits his statement to DR.. W. D. Finn,
the context of whose affidavit in Madi-
gan's behalf was presented to our
readers last week. This admission
was to the effect that had Madigan "a
good sharp attorney, he would never
have been convicted" He also admits
the authenticity of the affidavit Of
George Houghmaster to the effect
that the petitioner never swore to the
affidavit of attachment in connection
with the Helgeson & Mogen case
Pierce, however, in his affidavit, takes
the ground that he believed then and
does still, that the subscribing to the
affidavit on the part of the petitioner
and the court commissioner, without
even the formal administering of an
oath, constituted perjury. He alleges
further in his affidavit that he acted
in good faith in carrying on his prose.
cution of Madigan and denies that
any conspiracy or collusion existed be-
tween himself and H. j. Peck, the at
torney for Madigan, to bring about
the conviction of the latter.
Pierce's affidavit contained some
singing language towards the peti.
toner, although the latter is of the
opinion that the affidavit is manifest.
ly fair and states, as a whole. facts tc
which he, in a great measure admits
The main points, of course, to which
the petitioner could object, are those
denying collusion and that subscrib-
ing to without administering the oath,
constituted perjury. Attorney Dolliff
claimed that the affidavit was an ad.
mission of the essential features con-
tanned in his clients petition.
The affidavit of H. J. Peck was sen.
sational in the extreme because it pur'
ported to reveal professional secrets
between attorney and client and be-
cause it contained statement thai
"Madigan was convicted, as he should
have been." Immediately upon the
introduction of this remarkable docu.
ment. it was objected to by Mr.. Dollif
on the ground that it was incompetent
and purported to disclose confidentia,
communications between attorney and
client during the existence of the
case. The attorney took the position
that it was inadmissable, because
while he might deny the facts alleged
in the petition, Peck went further
and violated all rules of evidence and
the sanctitv of the relation of attorney