Decorah public opinion. (Decorah, Winneshiek County [Iowa]) 1895-1928, 1905-02-15

more than if his ancestors had nothing
of it. All the circumstances of the
case seem to be manifestations of an
insane mind in various degrees. From
witness observation of defendant in
Jail and in court he did not think he
was shamming.
Court adjourned to Saturday at 9 90
a. m.
Saturday morning. DR.. Swezey re-
called. Did not fully and completely
make up his mind defendant is insane
until two weeks ago. A person is more
liable to have insanity when ancestors
have been insane than when they have
not.
At this iuncture the defense rested.
REBUTTAL.
The state called as its first witness
in rebuttal
H. F. BARTHELL,
Who testified that the general moral
character of two witnesses for the de-
Tense in DEBORAH and vicinity is bad.
J. J. HOPPERSTAD.
Was next called and testified to the
same effect as Mr.. Barthell.
The state then called
N. WILLETT.
LAWYER here since 1894. Know de-
PENDANT since 1908. Drew up deed for
his brother, Rev. M. Willett and wife
to defendant for lots. About noon
sometime last June was called to a
place near the southwest corner of his
property, near the line between the
Clifford and Bigelow properties.
Think Clifford had the deed in his
hand. His brother made some remark
that Clifford claimed the description
in the deed was not sufficient. Said
the description certainly was sufficient.
Clifford remarked that it wasn't, he
guessed he had surveyed some in his
life. Witness remarked he didn't care,
he knew the description was correct.
Described to Clifford method of getting
description of property, called his at
tention specifically to the fact that
while the cowshed was on the proper
ty conveyed in this deed, still Mrs.
Bigelow owned the COW shed and
would remove it at any time she was
requested. Clifford asked where the
southwest corner of witness property
was, and said the line runs in north
easterly direction from the northwest
corner of the barn to this point. Wit
ness answered "yes, this seemed to
satisfy him and witness went of. Bas-
ing his opinion on conversation and
observation of him at that time. wit
ness thought he was sane at that
time. Witness knew at that time de-
PENDANT was wrong i'll his assertion
that description wasn't sufficient.
nu,xv WIT r I,u,U,
Present at time and place above
testified to. Remember the converse
ton, his brother went into details as
to ordinary methods of getting de-
scriptions, and said it was sufficient.
Clifford said he had done some survey
ing and didn't think it was. Known
defendant in general way several
years. After above occasion met
Clifford on lots wording, told him
Mrs. Bigelow assured witness he
claimed COW shed, told him was very
confident witness had assured him
COW shed didn't belong to him. De-
PENDANT was very sure he had not.
When n Willett and witness had
conversation, defendant was very posi-
tive and unyielding, it put something
of strain on witness to keep his tenn
per- Again witness and defendant
went to look over land about the sale
of it, made offer to him of 800, said
he would consult friends and let me
know. Two or three days afterward
defendant came to parsonage, said he
would accept offer, and they went to
lots to look them over. Met him again
after deed was made out, day or two
after sociable at Kennedy house. Mrs.
Bigelow had told witness about their
conversation, and he went to see de-
PENDANT after dinner, told him what
Mrs. Bigelow had said, expressed sur
prise that he questioned ownership of
COW shed. He gave witness to under
stand he hadn't told him cow shed be-
longed to Mrs Bigelow. Witness said
he was fully convinced he had told
him. Again saw Clifford that after
noon, and told him his brother con-
firmed his memory in detail, that
witness said, "you know, Mr.. Clifford,
Mrs. Bigelow." Then Prof. Clifford
said he wouldn't believe witness
brother under oath. Regardless of
what had been said, there was no re-
servation of that COW shed in deed.
Subsequent to that, witness had gem
eral understanding that Clifford did not
claim COW shed, they were friendly
afterward, met genially. Witness
thought it was very unreasonable con-
duct for a man like Clifford, didn't ex-
pect that.
WILLIAM STINSON.
In hotel business in CrescO. Lived
in vicinity of DEBORAH up to year ago.
Attended school at Valder's winter of
19Ol-2 and 1923. Clifford was teach
ing there then. One day in winter of
1908 was going to leave school and go
home about. 3 80 p. M, had overcoat
ON and started for door, Clifford called
him back, asked him if he thought it
was right to leave school without per-
mission. Said he had always left that
way before, others did, considered he
had right to leave. He had never
before called his attention to It.
Called him to front of the room, asked
him several times if he thought it was
right or wrong, said it was the rule to
ask permission. There was class in
front reciting geography. Defendant
patted him on { back several times
and called him nice little boy. Wit
ness was 1S years old and was angry.
Clifford asked him to go to Prof. Val
der about it after school, witness said
- thtc >,