Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1864-08-04

| certain lltlSatlOu, altelWdIuS sdI Us JuuBe
therein, and in the District and Supreme
Courts, pronounced judgment in favor Of his
former client. 1t was a grave accusation.
The law as found upon our statute books
laws of 1861, PIP. 450) says: u" A Judge shall
not act as such in any of the following
cases:
Third-Where he has been attorney or coun-
sci for either party in the action or proceed
ing" Not only is such an act thus prohibit
ed by the letter of the law, but it is in its
nature fragrant moral crime, revolving to
every instinct Of honor and honesty. The
Judge who commits it disgraces the profess
sion with which he claims fellowship, and
pollutes thetiermne which he wears. We
made the charge because fully convinced Of
its truth. Judge North had published, let
the question be upon my conduct as Judge,
and let the allegations be made definitely and
distinctly" We made the allegations I" de-
tinitely and distinctly" That the recollec-
| ton of our readers may be refreshed, We re-
capitulatc the facts. One Blodgett was an
owner, by location, of 200 feet in the Potosi
claim. While the interest still stood in his
name upon the books he died. One Robert
Foulkcs then claimed to have purchased 10y
verbal sale) thiS200 feet from Blodgett in his
lifetime. The heirs Of Blodgett denied this
purchase. Pending the dispute Foulkes deed
ed his right to Peter Rice, and he demanded
and sought to obtain from the Potosi Co.
| (which had then become incorporated) stock
for the amount Of this interest. The Potosi
Company refused to issue this stock, on the
ground that there was doubt about the valid
ity Of Rice's title. Rice subsequently, by
deed, conveyed his disputed title to J. H.
AtchinsOn. Meantime, one Haskell was ap-
-,,ff k,. gNnfa Nf
| EFT, and as representative of his heirs claimed
the ownership of this 200 feet, and that the
stock therefor should be issued to those heirs
and not to Rice or Atkinson. The Potosi
| Company refused to issue the stock to either
until this dispute should be decided by the
Judgment of a competent Court. An action
was therefore commenced in the District
Court of the First Judicial District, entitled
"Haskell, Administrator, VS.. Atchinson, to
determine the validity of these respective
titles. A referee was appointed, who report
ed the facts and recommended judgment IN
favor of Atkinson and the District Court,
upon Il motion to set aside this report and
the Judgment entered thereon, decided finally
| in favor of Atchinson's title. Upon appeal
to the Supreme Court this judgment was
affirmed. Concerning the above facts there
is no dispute, and they would possess no
public interest except for what follows. Al
Ter stating them in substance, we charged
that North, before his appointment as Judge,
acted as Attorney in behalf Of the Atkinson
title, and as such gave advice to Rice and
Atkinson, and that after his appointment
he did, as District Judge, pass upon the case
and decide it in favor Of his former clients,
and subsequently, participated in decision
in the Supreme Court affirming this judy
flt,. al nh
the DaiH Union, speaking in his behalf, first
denied that he had ever acted as Judge upon
the case in the District Court, not then dis
putting that he had previously acted as attor-
ney in the matter.
| This denial we met and stamped with
falsity, by publishing the record Of his own
| Court, containing the final order diSposing
Of the case on the merits, under his own
| hand, and certified to by his own Clerk.
Hopeless Of impeaching record signed by
Judge North himself, it was next denied that
he had ever acted as attorney in the matter
wherein he was thus proved to have acted as
Judge. We published an affidavit Of G. D..
Roberts, establishing this fact. In reply a
| card, not an affidavit, of Mr.. AtchinsOn was
published in the Union, in which he denies
| that Judge North ever acted as attorney for
him in the case of Haskell rs. Atkinson.
Rice at the same time published an affidavit,
| in which he denied that North was attorney
| for him in that case. Had the matter rested
| here the public might have remained in doubt.
But while awaiting further information which
should reconcile these apparently conflicting
statements, Mr.. Atkinson publishes another
explanatory card, which If it does not tell all,
reveals the criminality OF his judicial patron
| in unmistakeable characters. We reprint
| o,,r raa1nrc NAV oiyn rnfi1l
| examination:
To prevent any misunderstanding OF my
card published in the Union on Saturday last
l desire to state, that did not say and did
not mean to say that Mr.. Roberts intention
aRy mis- stated our conversation at Carson.
| do not so believe. do think, however, he
was mistaken. Judge North never was either
counsel or attorney for me in the case Of
| Haskell VS.. Atkinson, or any other matter.
l do not therefore think that could have said
that he was. may have said to Mr.. Roberts
flor think I have said the same to others,
that Rice did consuh toith North as to pro-
curing stock from the Potosi Company, on
this f,co hundred feet formerly 0lcned by
Blodqett, and did get North to torite a letter
to the PotoSi Company about 1t. This may
have been the foundation Of Mr.. Roberts
construction Of the conversation. will fur
Their say that l never understood that North
was attorney for Rice in any difficulty be-
tween him (Rice) and Blodgett's heirs. But
Rice simply adriSed acith North IN reference
to getting the stock from the Potost Company.
North was never attorney for Rice, as Rice
sold out before any litigation was COM
menced. ). II. ATCHINsoN.
Mark the history Rice claiming stock on
200 feet of Potosi ground in dispute between
him and Blodgett's heirs, consults North, an
attorney practising at Washoe, as to the
means of obtaining it. North gives him ad-
vice. He NORTH opens communications
with the Potosi Company and writes them a
letter on behalf Of his client Rice. The sole
questions which made the advice Of an at
torney necessary to Rice, was the disputed
validity of his title as against the represen-
tatives of Blodgett. Upon this North gives
him counsel. He advocated his claims with
the Potosi Company and urges an acknowl-
edgment of this title by issuing stock upon it.
| What is it that he afterwards decides upon as
Judge! The validity Of the self same title
which he had been retained as an attorney to
advocate. The silly presentations in this
card and in Rice's affidavit as to whether
North acted as attorney in the case are too
contemplate to merit consideration. Even
| the STATUTE WLllCn VIC HuVSSu HlO'iuSS
against any such quibbling evasions by dis
Qualifying the Judge from acting, not only
when he has been attorney, but when he has
been counsel, and not only in the action but
in the proceeding. Such a subterfuge might
serve to delude the conscience Of an unedu.
Gated man like Atkinson. But Judge Of
the Supreme Court to play no such trick
upon his moral perceptions. No mere vari-
ance of names on the title page Of the action
deceived him. He knew that the point upon
which he was called upon to decide as Judge,
IN wit the validity Of the title derived from
Blodgett through Foulkes was the identical
question which, while an attorney, he had
been counselled upon, and upon one side Of
which he had expressed and even urged and
decided it as Judge, and doing SO he stands
Convicted as a bold breaker of the law which
he attempted to administer perjured viola
tor of his oath Of office-an ignominious be.
trayer Of the honor Of the profession into
i L.. loGl ~