Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-03-15

Onc ktcdt EalhcEs anu while VT
may differ in politics we may YET
be friends, and that there is room
enough for us all TO live in this
great commonwealth both as neigh.
bors and as friends. Applause
THE WALKER ESTATE.
Dispute Over Land Sale.-Marshall
& ROyle vs.. P.L. Williams.
The dispute over the sale Of cer-
tain portions Of the 5. T. Walker
estate has been referred to severaI
times in our court items. Thestatus
OF the case is this: In Mr.. Walker,s
will there was a provision that the
executors could sell certain property
at public or private sale. on this
authority contracts for sales were
made, subject to the confirmation Of
such sales by the Probate Court.
When the matter came up befor,
Judge Batch, he refused TO confirm
the sale, insisting that, while the
executors had right to sell, upon
the terms Of the will, they should
have done so upon a public notice
given by advertising. The execu-
tors, under the advice VI Marshall
L Royle, their attorneys, took the
position that the notice they had
given was sufficient, as it placed the
property before the public as fairly
as if it had been advertised. The
decision Of Judge Bartch was ap-
Pealed from, and the case was
heard in the district court
by Judge Henderson, who sustained
the probate judge. An appeal was
taken TO the Territorial Supreme
| Court.
Since the contracts for the sale
have been made the property has
greatly appreciated, and today the
estate could realize much more from
1t than before. But the parties who
purchased did - in good filth, and
but for n technicality, on which
leading attorneys and the courts
disagreed, would have been in full
possession. The Supreme Court,
seeing the position, that the issue
was no: between parties litigant,
but between the court and Others.
wanted to hear some arguments in
favor OF the position assumed by the
judges in the probate and district
courts, as well as that taken by the
executors and purchasers, aud re-
4 tested T. l.. Williams TO combat
the propositions Of Marshall 4 Royle.
For this purpose Mr.. Williams filed
brief giving his views. Today
Marshall & Royle filed their brief in
answer, meeting all Of Mr.. Will
liams' propositions.
Lawyers, like other people, some
times make mistakes, or even be-
come over-anxiOus to present their
side OF the case. And when they
do they are frequently brought up
standing by the opposing counsel.
This case seems 10 be one I'm point
and the way in which Marshall &
ISOyle impaIe MIR. Williams with "A
legal lance is worthy of a record.
Here Is an extract from what they
say:
We observe upon Mr.. Williams
brief that he appears in this proceed
ing Us friend Of the Court.
In AndersOn's Dictionary Of Law
ADlicus CLriG is defined, 'sA
friend Of the Court. Imports friend
ly Intervention Of counsel to remind
the Court Of some matter Of law
which has escaped its notice, and
in regard TO which it appears 70 he |
an danger Of going wrOng''.
slsapaje and Lawrence in their (
law dictionary defined the same /
words: "a friend Of the Court A
person who, being in Court and u
stranger to the case then in course
of discussion, gives the judge in
formation on question of which he
may take judicial notice, c. O.. OF an
unrepOrted decision, etc"
a very delicate position, and n
very honorable position if rightly
filed.
1t seems to us to be n position in
which an attorney should put aside
self interest; and, free from all bias
and prejudice, should bring to the
consideration Of the question in
vOlved, not so much the training
and resources Of an advocate who
has one side Of case TO take care OF
As a cool, displssionate, impartial. /
judicial discrimination, which can
see both sides OF n case, and, seeing
them, reach fair and just conclu-
sion in the premises.
IL we have omitted to call the
attention Of the Court TO n leading
case, which discussed or decided the I
question now before this Court, Mr..
Williams might well comment upon
the fact, and call the attention o: /
this Court to IL as something "no-
ticeable," if not suspicious. And |
Mr.. Williams appears to think tina /
he has discovered such an omist 4
sion upon our part. He says at is
noticeable that IN neither briefs OF |
counsel, nor in the opinion Of the |
Court, is the case OF LARGO VS.. Cas- |
aneuva cited, which can only be |
accounted for by its inapplic.ibility |
on the facts disclosed by the record.r |
Page 3 Of Briefly The statement |
that the case Of LARGO VS.. Casaneuva |
vas not cited in the opinion Of |
Judge henderson, or in our brief in |
this case, could only have been |
made because counsel had not read |
the opinion or the brief. The ca-r
is not only cited in our brief but is |
discussed, commencing on page 10 |
and ending on page 10.
This noticeable error Of counsel |
might have been avoided If counsel |
had given heed to the wisdom Of a |
wonderfully wise man, found in |
Proverbs, 18th chapter and 18th |
verse.
The Proverbs reads:
He that answercth a matter before he |
heaTe;h Is folly a nd shame unto him.
Further on the attorneys say:
There are many things Of which |
this court will take judicial knowl- |
edge, but it is noticeable thSt in this |
opinion Mr.. Williams sets at naught |
the common law of the English |
speaking race, and largely also the
statutory law Of most Of the States
Of the United States, and must rank
himself among a certain class Of
persons, mentioned by st. Paul, who
''are a law unto themselves"
Splendidly Equipped.
The Chicago. Milwaukee and 81