The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1911-04-08

would be in favor of granting such
request to the prosecution IL the same
privilege would be accorded to the
defense. President Burdick stated that
he had intended to embody that idea
that the defense should have the same
right when he made the original state
ment
Senator Simpson suggested that he
thought the proposition was matter
to consider when the time arrived and
the prosecution had exhausted the In
formation in the forty-nine cases al
ready specified. Senator Kennedy
wanted to know the reason why they
desired to present their application at
this time, before they had fully ex-
hausted their cases already cited.
President Burdick said the request
was probably made so that the counsel
for the prosecution could shape their
attitude and be in readiness when the
time arrived,
At that point Mr.. Sinkler stated he
wished to serve notice on counsel for
the defense that such an application
would be made and he walked across
in front Of the witness stand and laid
the instrument on the table in front
of Tracy r. Bangs.
Senator Kennedy wanted further to
know il the vote taken on the question
was In any way binding on the senate
in granting the request OF the house
board Of managers should a formal
application be made to present other
cases should it exhaust the informa-
ton In those already specified. When
assured by President Burdick that it
was not binding, he consented to a
roll call with the others.
Almost Unanimous Vote.
The second roll call was almost
unanimous in favor of granting the
house board of managers permission in
filing such an application as had been
stipulated. Those voting in the af-
firmative were:
Cashel, Davis, Duis, Elken, Ellingson,
Ganssle, Garden, Gibbons, Gilbert,
Gronvold, Gunderson, Hookway, ia
cobson, Johnson, Kennedy, Kretsch-
mar. Linde. Martin, Mcdonald, Nc
Dowell, Mclean, diversion, Plain, Put
nam, Ruzicka, Simpson, Steel of Suits
man, Steele of Renville, Stevens, Sy-
vertson, Talcott, Thoreson, Turner,
Wallin, Walton, Welo, Welch, Whit
cher, Williams and Young.
Voting against the proposition were
Senators Baker and Duncan.
Cross Examines GreenIeaf.
Then came a period of testimony
which was uninterrupted for nearly
two hours, when another debate start
ed which ended the session Of the day.
d. c. Greenleaf, the Minot attorney.
who was called to the stand on direct
examination earlier in the afternoon,
was put on the stand for the regular
inquiry for the defense.
Mr.. Greenleaf testified that he was
not an interested party in the litiga-
ton of Ehr VS.. Jensen. He was further
examined in regard to the statements
made earlier in the day about the par
ticulars concerning the time when he
said he had seen Judge Cowan drunk
at the Minot stockyards at the horse
sale about two years ago.
Mr.. Greenleaf said it was a large sale
OF horses and there was quite a crowd
there bidding. When asked who else
beside Judge Cowan that he recalled
being present, he could only recall R
Fl. Bradford of LeSueur & Bradford,
and Judge Palda. Counselor T. Bangs
asked him IL he did not recollect Sena-
tor Kennedy of Fargo and Lieutenant
Governor Burdick being with Judge
Cowan on that day, and he said that he
did not. Mr.. Greenleaf could not recall
Senator Kennedy's presence there at
all, and said he did not believe he knew
Mr.. Burdick at that time.
Mr.. Bangs asked him If Judge Cowan
was intoxicated or exhilarated, which
during his testimony. He answered the
judge was a little of both, and that he
didn't know how the Jurist felt
"Did any one come to You for these
facts?" inquired Mr.. Bangs.
YES Silver Serumgaard," answered
the witness.
did he make any further statements
to you" but the question, was in
terrupted by an objection entered by
the prosecution, which was sustained
The witness stated that A. r. Kerlin
had also come to see him about the
time of the first investigation by the
house during the recent legislative
session.
LeSueur Next Witness.
Arthur LeSueur of Minot, a former
attorney Of that city, also testified
In regard to specification so of charge
No. 6, pertaining to the Ehr VS.. Jensen
case. Mr.. LeSueur produced for ex-
hibit 112-page brief Of the case, in
which he had appeared for the plain
tiff when it was tried in November,
1901. At that time the Second Judicial
district extended IN territory to the
Montana line.
He said he presented findings twice
to Judge Cowan prior to either July
8. 1906 or 1907, and before that the
findings were also rendered the ac-
cused for decision, though the date
when they were submitted, he was un-.
able to state. The first time he pre-
scented the findings In this case to
Judge Cowan, he said, was in 1904 and
he testified he. didn't know what had
become of 1t. The next time was in
1906.
The next step he said he took in the
matter to secure a decision in the
case was when he sent to Burke &
Middaugh and learned that Judge