The White Pine news. [volume] (Treasure City, Nev.) 1868-1906, 1890-05-31
THE CASE OF JUDGE WELLS
Clearly Stated in the Eureka Senti-
mel by MIR. Cassidy.

Judge WellS Ill tue w dlCotl vs.. w dt-
son case will be heard in the Supreme
Court next Monday. A confer snce of
leading attorneys for the defense was
held in Eureka last week and all the
points of law and authorities bearing
on the subject discussed. 1t was no
doubt on their conclusions that the
following clear and concise view OF
the case appeared in the Sentinel OF
last Saturday:
Judge Wells, who had been assign
ed to the district comprising White
Pine, Nye and Lincoln counties has
been cited TO appear before the Su-
preme Court on June I'd to show
cause and by what authority he is
exercising judicial functions in any
of said counties. The writ of prohib-
ition also asks him to show cause
why he refused to dismiss certain
cause of action pending i'll his court
at White Pine, and further to explain
his refusal to transfer the same case,
on motion of the plaintiff, TO the
United States District Court OF Ne
vada. * The merits of the orig
inal] action are not pertinent to the
purposes of this article. 1t is fact
to be stated with propriety, however,
that Mrs. Walcott does not desire the
case tried at Ely, while Mr.. Watson
does. The suit was originally brought
by Mrs. Walcott, as plaintiff, in the
District Court of White Pine county.
Su bsequently her counsel determin-
ed upon a tranfer of the case to the
United States Court at Carson and
thereupon filed the usual motion to
effect that purpose, alleging the non
residence of plaintiff, etc. There is
law of the United States to the effect
that plaintiff is estopped from NOV
ing to transfer after the answer has
been put in by the defendant. Just
here another question Of fact comes
IN as to the White Pine litigation. 1t is
alleged by Mrs. Walcott's attorneys
that their motion for the transfer
reached the Clerk of White Pine
county prior to the receipt and the
filing by him of the answer of the
defendant. This, we believe, is adj
mitted, but the Clerk had not been
paid his costs and for that reason
refused to file the papers. There was
also motion or notice Of dismissal
| which shared the same fate. Judge
| Wells acted in the case upon the rec
ord as made up by the Clerk. The
attorneys for the lady are contending
that they were entitled either to
dismissal or a transfer, and it is
Judge Wells action upon these ques-
| tons that is to be reviewed by the
| Supreme Court. The constitutional
| ity of the act Of the Legislature Great
| ing fourth district Judge for the
State is also assailed. The Constitu-
| ton itself divided the State into nine
Judicial Districts, and then conferred
power upon the Legislature to change
| them in the following languages:
1.-THE Legislature may provide by
| law for an alteration in the boundar-
| les or divisions of the districts herein
| prescribed, and also for increasing or
| diminishing the number of judicial
district and Judges therein; but no
such change shall take effect except
in case Of a vacancy or the expiration
Of the term of the incum bent of the
| of1ice.'
There can be no question that
| it was the intention of the trainers
| of the Constitution to maintain the
local district system and allow the
| people to elect their Judges by dis
tricts. The law which created the
whole State into one judicial district
is clearly and manifestedly uncon-
stltutional. But our Supreme Court,
| in it's great wisdom, has already de-
cided the law TO be valid. Hence ter
ritorial area or jurisdiction will cut
no figure in the White Pine proceed
| ing. 1t follows therefore that to
successfully assail the tenure of Judge
Wells. reliance must be had on the
| last clause of the above quoted sec
ton of the constitution which directly
and in terms inhibits the Legislature
from making changes in the number
of Judges during the incumbency Of
those already elected. But If our
Supreme Court, in its great wisdom,
could s'divide" the State into one dis
trict it ought to be able to so construe
the plain language of the constitution
as to permit of an increase Of Judges
in the middle of judicial term. 1t
is not likely, however, that Judge
Wells will be seriously interfered
with under this writ of prohibition.
LAWYERS tell us that he cannot be