Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1911-04-01
Il OF
INTEREST IN
COWAN trial
Simpson Does Not Want Con-
versation Interrupted
Cowan Takes Close Note Of
Opposition Counsel
Cowan Makes Close Notes.

court yesterday afternoon, Judge Cow
ian was constantly engaged in taking
notes of the statement. Sitting only
five or six feet from the prosecuting
attorney, he maintained a constant
lookout for points that were made.
and was constantly engaged in not
ing the same.
In this manner, and in many other
ways, he assists his attorneys during
the progress of the case.
No Evidence Coming.
On the alleged Mcdonald and
Schulz incidents, the former at Min
neWaukan and the latter at Rugby,
charged in the articles of impeach.
ment,it now appears that no evidence
whatsoever will be introduced. Coun.
sci George Bangs stated in his open
ing statement Of yesterday afternoon
that inasmuch as both women were
absent from the state, that there ap.
peared little likelihood Of evidence be.
ing submitted on those cases.
Evidence bearing on the contention
of the state under the sixth and also
the seventh charges will be introduced
in joint manner, that is, the evidence
that will be introduced in one charge
will also be introduced as bearing up
on the first. The sixth charge relates
to delay in cases and the seventh
charge relates to the filing of certi.
f1cates with the state auditor, such
certificates being those filed on which
the judges of the district court re-
ceive their salaries.
Simpson Gets Sarcastic.
If there is any member in the SEN
ate that has ability to becom sarcas'
tic, 1t is Senator Simpson of Stark
county, and one of his remarks may
be expected at any time.
One that he INDUCED in Thursday
is characteristic. Counsel Tracy R.
Bangs had just commenced making an
argument when the Stark county SEN
ator arose.
"Mr. President" he remarked. II
would like to suggest to the counsel
that he not speak SO loud as to dis
turb the conversation"
And about that time little argu-
ment that had been going on some
what one sided, so far as converse.
ton was concerned, suddenly ceased.
One member OF the court had forgot
ten FOR the moment the presense of
the rule of silence pending the trial
of the case.
cuthbert and Bangs Meet.
1t was almost at the close of yes.
terday afternoons statement of the
prosecution by George A. Bangs that
he became involved In very brief
way, in an argument with Attorney
Cuthbert, for the defense. In a case
that Mr.. Bangs had cited, Attorney
Cuthbert offered challenge, he de-
claring that the statement was not
quite correct, but George Bangs re-
turned with a remark that he was
quite certain OF his position because
of having received a letter to that ef
feet from Middaugh & Cuthbert of
Devils Lake.
In making hi statement to the i'm
parchment court on cases that were
charged to have been delayed in so far
as decisions or action by the impeached
judge is concerned, the following cases
were specified and are the ones that
will be brought up during the trial,
which is now fairly we'll under way.
Oksendahl VS.. Hayes, submitted Mar.
l6, 1906, not yet decided.
State vs.. Sam Goldberg, pleaded
guilty February "a, 1902, has never
been sentenced.
State vs.. Coburn, pleaded guilty On
Feb. "a has never been sentenced.
Brown vs.. Leonard, submitted Janu-
ary % 1902, and decided eight years
and four months later, June 4, 1910.
Brown vs.. Rolette county, submitted
Feb. 6, 1902, decided May "A, 1910,
more than eight years later.
Sargent vs.. Jameson, action to fore
close mechanics lien submitted Feb.
rs, 1902, decided May Is, 1910, more
than eight years later.
Brown VS.. Couonow, action to quiet
title submitted May 81, 1903, decided
Aphl 90, 1904.
Carbon vs.. Owls, motion for new
trial subsnitted July Is, 1904, decided
October Is. 1893, more than FIVE years
later. !.
Norman vs.. Rolfe, action to quiet
title, submitted J4dy Is, 1904, decided
October Is. 1909. more than five years
later.
Burdick vs.. Denoyer, submitted Dec.
l, 1905, decided July 81, 1908. after the
parties had made settlement. Re-
peated applications for decision were
made, and rather than permit the mat
ter to remain longer undetermined the
prosecution declares the parties came
TO settlement between themselves.
Ugland VS.. Kolb, action to foreclose
contract submitted April IL. 1905, de-
>ided OctI Is, 1909, four years and
six months later.
Cartier vs.. ~Brugger, action for spe-
life performance Of contract, submit
ed March 4, 1901. decided Aug. l8,
1905, more than four. years later. Files
ind exhibits lost and later action was
,egun in equity to set aside judgment.
Kilgore VS.. Smith, appealed from
ustice court, motion to dismiss Aug.
!, 1905, with no decision yet rem
Tered. l
Powell vs.. Norton, action to quiet
title, submitted Aug: Is, 1905, NO deci-
ion yet rendered.
Small vs.. Baxtrosn, submitted Nov.