Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-04-17

surrender said mine TO the honorable
court, and to stand purged OF all
contempt and he restored TO
our liberty, having fun confidence
in the court, believing that any rights
we may have In said copper mine will
be fully protected" See exhibit Q.
THE REcALCiTRANr PRISONERS.
The prisoners of course refused TO |
sign the foregoing paper and sub
united 10 the Judge In the following
Language:
1--WE, tho undersigned, heretofore
committed for an alleged contempt
upon the charge that we have not |
obeyed the order of this court to oliver |
up to the Canon del Aqua company
the complainants in this suit, Ger.
tain mine known rs the Big Copper |
mine, otherwise known as the Nuestra |
Sonora del los Dolores mine, and pro-
testing that we have not wilfully vio- |
lated the order aud injunction OF this |
honorable court, respectfully ask 10 |
be permitted 10 surrender the pos
session OF said mine to this |
honorable court and not 10 complain
ants, and to stand purged of all COM
tempt heretofore adjudged against us,
and that we be restored to our liberty
at once, and that the attorneys. Frah-
els Downs, Bostwick aud Vim
cent, be restored TO practice, and that
alljudgments, orders or DEGREES here
tofore entered, rendered and
issued, touching said
matter Of alleged contempt against us,
be set aside and held for naught,
showing confidence that the court will
protect US In our rights which we may
have in said mine and matters per-
tanning thereto, not Intending to waive
any of our legal or equitable rights
ia said premises. All Of
which we respectfully submit" lSee
exhibit III.
A MODEL DECREE.
Judge Axtell approved the paper
and sent u note to the prisoners rs fol-
lows:
az the stipulations are followed out
In good faith | will accept the mine,
discharge the prisoners and appoint
Hon. w, q. Peck, receiver.
rs. b. AXrEI.L, Chief Justice.n
After the prisoners signed the paper
referred by them 10 the judge, they
, were brought into court and set ut lib
, erty. aud were also reinstated to prac-
: tice at the bar and excused from pay
ing the fine imposed by the court, but
! Axtell refused TO appoint Peck re-
). ceiver, but instead made him custodian
. OF the mine. When the Injunction
I. first issued, the defendants asked AK
4 tell to appoint receiver and they
r. would surrender the mine, which hi
refused TO do.
i AXTEIL AND THE LAW OF DIVORCE
II One OF the grosscst abuses of judicial
; power by Axlell occurred In the Bur-
n ton divorce proceedings during 1883
!, VIM. &. Burton applied for "a divorce
d from his wife, Susan Il. Burton. Tn,
y divorce was duly granted. The com
" missioner before whom the testimony
s. in the proceedings WAS taken WIS al
e. lowed by the court fifty dollars for hi
10 services, which amount Burton faile'
N 10 pay. This matter being brough
st to the notice OF AAtell
al he ordered that Burton pay his wife
pit attorney $500 and his own auorne
IN $3.50, and appointed IA sequestrator
ed take charge of his business, Burton y
Is the time having II saloon and billiar
IA room worth Si5 900. There was.
chattel mortgage on the place fo
$500.
to AXTELL RUNS THE GROCERY AN
nd MAKES A RATrLING SPEECH.
es. The sepuestrator was not r
NJ CURED To give pom
lot but took charge aud within day soi
ie. IL for s 20. Burton never got
I'D dollar. While the matter was beioi
:w Axtell, 1t was stated verbally by coui
is sci that IL was believed Burton hu
ng money on deposit at the First Nation
ell bank OF Las Vegas, whereupc
~, Axtell directed subpmi
I'D TO issue To Josiah S. pisbon, the casl
'rs, Ter of said bank, who promptly obey
lst- and when he entered the conrtroo
ere Axtell addressed him In the followii
the manner: "Mr. Pisbon, you have be
In called here 10 testify TO the Truth, a
! at unless you do so, 1 will put you
us jail"
adj made by the court, Pisbon had in
nd way been disobedient. ("See exhii
ing lS-l9p)
md AxrELL SHOWS HOW GREAT A 70
ing WAS GREENLEAF.
Vas At the March term, 1888, of the d
'nu trict court Ia San Miguel county, up
~ trial of the case of the Terrlu
ien of New Mexico VS.. ID
ere ton. the defendant "
IN tried for larceny. A witness was up
VIZ , the stand testifyiDg when counsel
o n1 defendant objected TO the testiiyiDg
a'i being hearsay, and that the pers'
,ys from whom the witness stated
= " learned the facts were within the
'eu- risdiction of the court and could cas-
be produced as witnesses. Il
was the first objection made IN
)urt course of the examination. The
enc anon Axtell said "Now, ] do
wn. want any more objecting. JUS.
and soon as q witness says anything u
,iell is likely to DISCLOSE facts,
rom average attorney will jump
r In and object for the sole 81
of of preventing truth being u
ner- and obstructing justice. Now, / WI
AK the witness to go on and tell his sto
rom aud will have no more objectin
'sI'Il Upon such testimony, 1t Is conts nd
rom together with the determined effort
the part of the judge TO secure ms 9
viction, the defendant was iol
hen guilty, and, being p,
CON. was sentenced for
,om. years to the penitentiary.
,hey AxrELL LECTURES THE BAR.
( ha- Al the same term of court Ak
ldge rambling on his desk one day, SAID,
lave want the attention of the member
d he the bar. You, gentlemen, can 80
stol, the street and talk about me and
Tins decisions, and i will retaliate Il
the bench. can 40
more harm than you
cs,I. do me, and will do II. Now trj
! an. and we will see who Will make
= n ai- II is stated that this was sal
pro- brutal tones.