The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-01-27
SENSATIONAL ENDING OFF WILLIAM
EHLLNG's PERSONAL INJURY
DAMAGE SUIT.
EFFORT TO FIX WITNESSES
THE COURSE OF THE
TRIAL.
JUDGE WILLIS DROPPED A HINT
Fnfrest Course to the PLAINTIFF
in the Case.

Attorney E. 8. Thompson, while en-
gagged In trying a personal injury suit
before Judge Willis and jury yes
terday, was confronted by a very
serious charge. Charles w. Johnson.
his own witness. accused Mr.. Thomp-
son Of Offering him various sums of
money ranging from $500 to 500 If he
would give certain testimony in the
case on trial. The charge caused a
sensation In the court room, and the
trial proceeded no further. At the sug-
gestion Of Judge Willis, the case was
continued in order to give the plaintiff
fair show and allow him opportunity
to employ counsel who are not involved.
In the course Of his remarks upon the
turn the case had taken, Judge Willis
administered singing rebuke to At
torney Thompson, while on the other
hand he paid high compliment to T.
w. Root. one of the defendants attor-
neys, for the courteous and generous
manner in which he had conducted the
defense.
The case wa that of William H.
Filling against the Minnesota Transfer
company. Filling, who is a lad Of TWEEN
ty years, was in the employ of the
company a year or more ago, and while
attempting to couple two freight cars,
his left hand was crushed, rendering
amputation Of that member necessary.
He has sued the company for $4,000
damages for personal injuries, claiming
that they were caused by the negli-
gence of the defendant. The company
in it's answer admits the accident but
declares that it was due entirely to the
negligence Of the plaintiff.
Charles w. Johnson, the witness,
called by Mr.. Thompson, was the fire
man employed on the locomotive used
in switching the freight cars the day
Of the accident. Mr.. Johnson was seek
ing to show that the engine was
handled in a careless and reckless man
ner by the engineer. The witness was
not helping the plaintiffs case g. bit
When John H. Ives, who was associated
with Mr.. Thompson in the trial, asked
Johnson if he hadn't signed a certain
statement in the case, Johnson replied
that he had, but that he had never
read the statement, nor heard 1t read,
and did not know what it contained.
Mr.. Root then took Johnsn In hand
and elected some startling testimony.
The witness said that Mr.. Thompson
had offered him 5000 if he would testify
in the case. Mr.. Thompson, he said,
wanted him to testify that the engine
was handled in terrible, wild, reck-
less manner" But Mr.. Thompson"
he added, didn't tell me he wanted
me to swear to any lie."
Witness went on to say that Thomp-
son had spoken to him about Brtder,
the engineer ON the same locomotive
"Mr. Thompson told me-" continued
Johnson, that if Filling would testify
that Brfder was hot that morning, and
If l could confederate that testimony,
he said, we can lick them to a stand
still in any court, and there's a couple
of hundred dollars in it for you"
The witness said he did not agree
or promise to testify as desired, for
any amount Of money. On the redirect
examination witness said that he had
had a talk with Superintendent Dud-
geon Of the Minnesota Transfer Rail-
way company, relative to witness
starting hotel at New Brighton, but
that Mr.. Dudgeon had afterwards told
him it was "off' and he could testify
as he pleased.
Upon further questioning the witness
declared that Mr.. Thompson had subse-
quently told him he would give him
$500 for looking up another witness, and
later still Mr.. Thompson had said to
WllneSS, L Will give you S(UU.
This closed Mr.. JOhnson's testimony,
whereupon the court made few obiter
dicta
''The plaintiffs CASE said Judge
Willis, deserves good deal of consid-
GRAFTON. He may have a. just claim
against this railroad company. This
proceeding has undoubtedly prejudiced
his case a great deal. and it seems to
me that l ought to say something to
counsel on the subject.
TO put witness on the stand when
counsel know in advance that he will
testify against the interests Of the
plaintiff and then follow that up with
excited dialogue and elimination, and
bring out statements which reflect on
the personal integrity Of the counsel
for the plaintiff, is to say the least very
poor policy for this young man who
has law suit against this railroad
company. It will be almost impossible
to counterfeit that impression in the
minds Of the jury. I think this case
ought to be continued and the plaintiff
ought to have an opportunity to en-
ploy counsel who are not involved. OF
course, l cannot compel you to con-
tinue this case
Mr.. Ives said he was satisfied to con-
tinue the case, and Mr.. Root also con-
sented, expressing the opinion that the
court had struck it about right"
Judge Willis had a few more words
to say. He sharply criticised Mr.
Thompson for his personal reflections
upon Mr.. Root, the attorney for the
Minnesota Transfer company. In his
opening of the case, Mr.. Thompson had
referred to certain occult influences
at work and intinated that the defense
had tempered with witnesses. Judge
Willis said that this was not the way
to try case. It was reprehensible,
and not agreeable to the high profess
sion of the law. AT the same time Judge
Willis said that he felt it his duty to
commend the behavior Of Mr.. Root
Mr.. Root had conducted his share Of
the case properly. He had never been
wanting in professional courtesy, and
had exhibited commendable spirit Of
generosity.
The result is that the case will be
tried at the next term.