The Redwood gazette. [volume] (Redwood Falls, Minn.) 1873-1940, 1896-03-26

ceeding. Madigan appeared before
George Houghmaster and and secured
an attachment, but as it now appears,
but which was not brought out, did
not swear to the affidavit, as claimed
at the trial by the State. Mr.. Hough-
master was then and is now
court commissioner. Following the
issuance of the attachment proceed
ings Helgeson & Mogen assigned and
the estate did not pan out very we'll.
Helgeson and Mogen were the two
principal witnesses against Mr.. Madi-
gan at the trial of the action, although
the testimony of Mr.. Houghmaster,
who could not testify as he desired at
the time, had great weight with the
jury.
In the petition and statement At
torney Dolliff, on behalf of the petit
toner, says that fraud was perpetrat-
ed on the court to show that perjury
had been committed, when really it
had not been committed.
A direct shot is made at H. J. Peck,
attorney for Madigan at the New Ulm
trial, and S. L. Pierce, attorney for
the State, by accusing them of jointly
entering into conspiracy not to bring
out through Mr.. Houghmaster the
fact that the attachment affidavit was
never sworn to, as Mr.. Houghmaster
had previously informed him.
The affidavits are three in number,
as stated above. The first is that of
DR.. VIM. D. Finn, who AYERS that
while passenger on westbound
Northwestern train between Waseca
and New Ulm, some time prior to Jan.
9Th last, he had conversation with
S. L. Pierce on the train, and that
Pierce informed him that eff the de-
fendant Madigan had had good,
sharp attorney he could never have
been convicted upon the trial of the
case; that Madigan was never sworn
and never did swear to the affidavit in
question before Mr.. Houghmaster."
A second affidavit is made by Geo.
Houghmaster. It is to the effect that
Mr.. Madigan did not subscribe to the
affidavit and that the oath was never
administered and that he, Houghmas-
ter, informed both Pierce and Hough-
master of this fact, before the trial
commenced. The third affidavit is
from Tillson Tibbetts, who was pres
ent at the time the alleged affidavit
was made before the court commits.
sioner. This affidavit is to the effect
that the oath was never administered
County Attorney Clague was asked
Friday whether the State would ap.
pear in matter of the petition. He ex.
pressed some doubt on the question
saying that he would have to consult
the attorney general first. He was
completely surprised at the proceed
ing and at the affdavits annexed tc
the same. In fact, he practically ad.
mitted, that there was very little to be
done in the case,
When asked whether actions fol
false imprisonment could arise in case
the prayer of the petition was granted
next Wednesday he stated tkat such
actions could undoubtedly he COM
menced against the two attorneys in
question but he had some doubts as
to whether the commissioners and 9TH
or parties interested could be made
parties to the action.
The county commissioners, at the
time of the trial consisted of F. W.
Philbrick, James Arnold, Frank
Schandera, Frank Ellington and E.
A. Pease. Another attorney of this
city is of the opinion that the commits
sioners can be sued for their part in
the case.