The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1911-04-12

the taking OF testimony IN the conclu-
sion OF the delayed cases for the pros
ecution, was tedious procedure. Do1h
to witnesses. senator's and auditors.
R.red Traynor was the first called
to testify In regard to specification 70
In the case OF Martinson vs. hegans
which was followed by few questions
on the case of the Maple Wind Stacker
"a. w. Ham. mentioned In specinca'-
tion 2s. in which he appeared as at
torney for the defendant During the
testimony he related the incident or a
motion for new trial, and the receipt
Of a letter from Judge Cowan. though
he could not produce the original
which the respondent also disclaimeu
having in his possession.
The next case was that OF bergen
VS.. Nelson, in specification 80, Whicn
was an action on promissory note.
in which he said the defendant moved
| to dismiss the action on the GROUNDS
that the plaintiff, for whom he person
ally appeared, failed to file complaint
with the regular thirty days allowed
| for that purpose. He said the motion
was argued January 1908, and that ne
thought it was yet undecided.
| The next case cited was that or the
Rock Island PIow Co. VS.. Stenseth in
specification ss, about which the wit
ness stated he could not testify, as he
was not very familiar with the case.
Specification Al was the next, in
which he testified in regard to certain
claimed delays in the case OF Ruben
VS., Thomas, an action In equity in
court trial without a jury He stated
| Il was tried during the adjourned jan
uary, 1908, term some time about April
| 6. 1908. He said that further action
was taken and briefs were filed with
Judge Cowan, and stated that there
was nothing remaining to be done by
the attorneys in the case until the
decision was made, which Judge Cowan
did not announce, he said, until May
| 26. 1909, thirteen months later. He
said there was no reason for the de-
lay.
Other Witnesses.
Charles Houska Of Rolette county
was called to the stand and testified
to certain particulars in connection
with the case Of Duffy VS.. Egeland,
which was tried at Rolla, and con-
tanned in specification 49,
| A. Gilmore, a Williston attorney, was
put on the stand to testify In regard
to the case OF Bruegger VS.. Cartier, in
which the copy of judgment was in
| troduced as exhibit 121.
J. j. Youngsblood, an attorney Of
Fessenden, followed with testimony
pertaining to the same case. 1t was
brought out in the cross examination
conducted by Tracy Bangs that the
suit was over dispute between the
Great Northern railroad, which was
endeavoring to go over portion of
land belonging to one Of the litigants.
The witness did not know If the de-
cision had been held up. He said that
John Burke, now governor, had ap-
peared as counsel on the other side
of the case.
Victor WARDROBE Of Leeds was the
next witness, called in regard to spe-
cification "a, which refers to the case
of Zion Levy vs. O'Connen. The case
in question was brought in Novem-
Der, 1906, and Mr.. WARDROBE stated
that he talked with Judge Cowan about
it either in the fall of 1907 or 1908, he
could not recall which. He said that
during that conversation the accused
| jurist told him that he would get
around to 1t as soon as possible, prob
ably within a couple Of days. Further
than this he could not throw much
4 light on the case, as he said he was
not in court at the time IL was tried,
and he didn't know, the particulars In
connection Herewith, though to the
best OF his knowledge 1t was not de-
cided at the present time.
Last Witness.
The last witness Of the afternoon
was Herman Stenseth, clerk of the
court of Ramsey county He testified
in regard to some records in the case
Of the state of North Dakota VS.. Sam
Goldberg. mentioned in specification 3.
The files he produced were listed as
exhibits.
Before going further George A. Bangs
stated to the court that he wished to
wait before using these exhibits in
the testimony as there had been cer-
tain developments condemning them in
which he wished to inquire. Specific
cation 4, concerning the case Of the
state of North Dakota VS.. Coburn, al
WSA IShASHlOolSu trial. was next IN
order but a recess was taken until 81
o'clock this morning.
| 1t was announced by Mr.. Bangs Of
the prosecution that 1T was probable
this case would wind UP his testimony.
though he still wished TO put Mr.. Cuth-l
bert and Mr.. McClory of the counsel
for the defense on the stand in regard
to certain delayed cases the last thing
before resting. 1t is probable they win
be called today.