The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-07-21

continued Mr.. Mcdonald. st signed it
Wltnout looking up the matter. NOW l
flnd that L cannot stipulate away the
rights Of my client. AS to the question
Oh good faith, we carried our books
into the office of the county attorney
on the understanding that if no case
appeared against u client this in
dlctment should be withdrawn"
Judge Lewis feser$ed his ruling on
the objection for the,time being.
Inc state ra~n0Sagainst another snag,
when the assistant county attorney at
tempted to prove. the Incorporation of
the st. a Fire Brick company, the
concern which, Y brought the action
against Thurston, oo'Connor & Luz
Gus, and garnisheed the Minnesota
Savings bank. "A Certificate was held
incompetent to prove the Incorporation
at the time of the ACTION.
The assistant county attorney then
called a deputy clerk and afterward
Judge Kelly himself. Judge Kelly
testified that he had noted on his cal
endar the memorandum in which he
referred the matter to George N. Hill
a but the Judge could not recall
whether he had signed a formal order
appointing Hillman referee.
Court adjourned at this point until
2 p. m.
In the afternoon the deputy clerk
was recalled to testify concerning the
entry on Judge Kelly's calendar of the
case of the st. Paul Brick company
against Thurston and others. Mr.. Nc
Donald objected to all of the assistant
county attorneys questions along this
line, ~contending that the case of the
st. Paul Fire Brick company was not
entered on the docket and was never
referred to George N. Hillman.
In answer to Mr.. Zollman, Mr..
RnCnrCt ~, al Al~4
action to his knowledge pending in the
district -cour In which the St. Paul
Ere Brick company was plaintiff and
Thurstons' O'Connor & Lucius de-
PENDANTS. Mr.. Mcdonald cross-ex-
am1ned the deputy concerning the
practice in vogue in the clerks office
relative to the filing Of cases and plac-
ing them ON the special term calendar.
but nothing material was elected from
the witness concerning the entry of
the case in question on Judge Kelly's
oocket book, as the deputy had not
made the entry himself and knew
nothing regarding it,.
Inc assistant county attorney then
placed M. L. Countryman, the attor-
ney for the ST. Paul Fire Brick COM
pany, on the stand. After some SPAR
ring Tor points between counsel, Mr..
Mcdonald said he would consent to
the admission of stipulation regarding
testimony, provided Hill
mans testimony was considered COM
petent. But if Hillman wasn't compe-
tent to administer the oath to Mr..
Rlckel, he, Mr.. Mcdonald, objected to
the state calling Mr.. Countryman to
bolster up its case.
Mr.. Zollman conceded at this stage
that Mr.. Hillman had not taken the
oath of office as referee. The court adj
mitted the special term records in evil
dence. "
Mr.. Zollman then asked MI. Country
man to state what look place before
Referee Hillman. This was objected to
on the ground that the report of the
referee was the best evidence.
Until he has proved he had a ref
cree" said Mr.. Mcdonald, "he can't
call witnesses to testify to what took
place before Mr.. Hillman."
The assistant county attorney declar-
ed that he proposed to show hat Mr..
Rickel and his counsel waived the omis-
sion of Mr.. Hillman to take the pre-
scr1bed cath, and went ahead and gave
testimony. The omission of Mr.. Hill
man was a mere ir~regularity.
The Court think the report of the
referee is the best evidence of what
took place.
The court, however, allowed the assis-
tant county attorney to put the question
and the witness to answer it, with the
understanding that the sole purpose
was to show that the defendant waived
the referees OATH.
Mr.. Countryman then related what
took PLACE, before. Hillmanaa First Mr.
Heinlein testified. Nothing was said by
anybody in regardTtothe referees oath.
Continued the Witness Witness asked
Hillman if he was aynotary and he said
he was. !"f = y y
Il move to strike that last out" said
Mr.. Mcdonald.
The Court-It is stricken out.
Proceeding, Mr.. Countryman sa'd that
Mr.. Bickel vas afterward sent for,
was sworn by Mr.. Hillman, and testi-
fled, his counsel, Mr.. Barnard, raising
no objection.
Here MI. Zollman asked the witness
if he remembered Mr.. BickeTs testimony
and then followed the objection and
argument already outlined.