The Superior times. [volume] (Superior, Wis.) 1870-1912, 1891-11-07

at this time, either with or
without the consent of the parties, to
hear the cases. A day will be fixed for
hearing them later, when the Judge can
come here during the regular term.
The Harshaw cases were called in the
circuit court this morning. Judge Sic
becker called the court to order and
filed an order for Judge Newman
to sit in his stead. Judge Newman took
the judicial seat and the attorney-gen-
eral appeared before him to argue
the point of jurisdiction. Attorney
General O'Connor said that after
Judge Siebecker had determined that
he could not sit and try the case, the At
torneyGeneral began to inquire as to
the legality of another judge coming
in and trying the case. he regretted
that be had come to the conclusion
that they could not proceed to
trial without perilling the case.
He feared if the case proceeded
there would be a mistrial. The attor
neys for the defendants had been mott
fled of the existing legal point which
might invaiidate the trial. The order
made provided for Judge Siebecker's
hearing the case at chambers on Oc-
The attorney-genera held that when the
case was not called on that day by rea-
son of the prejudice of the case, and
when also no further order was entered,
there being no term of court in session,
the court had no jurisdiction to sit at
this time.
Authorities were quoted to sub
stantiate the position assumed by
the state, that the Judge could
to hear the case at chambers.
The other judge must be
called to preside during a
term, and as the court
was not in session at this time, Judge
Newman had no jurisdiction. Among
the cases cited was one from Montana
reported in "a Pacific Reports, page
626. If the court had no power
or agreement could be made between
the attorneys which would permit the
trial before such Judge. Here
was cited a case found in
3 Wisconsin, page $40. In this case the
court held that the court was with
out jurisdiction, Notwithstanding an
agreement between the parties in the
case cited in 50 Wisconsin, page 2i6
the Court said that consent OF
parties cannot give circuit
court Jurisdiction. Under all these de-
csions the attorneys for the state
deemed it to be their duty to lay
the matter before the court
The cases are noticed for
trial at the November term of court and
there then can be no possible question
this question can be evaded they in
sisted that it were better to do SO than
to run the risk of mistrial.
c. w. Felker followed IN opposition
to the attorney general. He said
that since there was question
OF jurisdiction raised he would simply
address the court as "Gour Honor"
He thought the arguments ought to be
heard to-day as before Judge SIebecker.
He rected the circumstances leading up
to the present condition of affairs.
Both agreed as to the trying
of the case if another Judge
could be obtained at some later
date. There is no question of the juris-
diction of the person but of the
Subject matter the power of
the court to try. When the
attorney brought this action he
obtained jurisdiction of the person
and the circuit court jurisdiction of the
subject 1udllGI. Jul iSdiCtlOll 10 SlIhpIN
the power in court or at chambers
ney-general's position the Co urt was
sitting simply as an arbitrator or
referee, not as judge, and
he thought this position was
untenable. The power of the cir
cult Judge does not depend upon an or
der which he may make, but upon
the consent of the parties. If
the attorney-general's logic is
good, the Judge would have no further
rights than ''stoken bottle, no matter
what insult might be offered him
1t is preposterous. Under the
rules the Judge who is called in has the
same effect. Whatever the Montana
court may have decided under that
states constitution, II certainly
has not been the practice
in the state of Wisconsin. The Judge
sitting for Judge Siebecker at the time
has like powers that Judge Siebecker
would have. He was ready to enter a
stipulation to try tee case before Judge
Newman.
Attorney J. V Quarles spoke also in
opposition to O'Connor. He said the case
from Montana would not affect this cause
because Judge Newman was asked to
come back here and preside in specl-
fed case. Ifhe were called to try other
cases as well, the Montana case might
be pertinent; but it is differ
ent under these circumstances.
The Judge of this judicial cir
cult was clothed with full power to
try a case in vacation. The Juneau
County term does not enter into
the matter in any way what
ever. by virtue OF the statute
cffn L
er had jurisdiction. A cause
arises which prompts him to
bring IN another Judge, and
this other judge was clothed
with all the authority TO hold court in
vacation and sit and try the cases
the same as Judge Siebecker.
The defendant is here with his
witnesses fror, all parts of the Union.
He has been to great expense, and If
the case be not tried low it
may be postponed indefinitely.
Col. W. F. Villas said that after the ex-
igency arose mat has been discussed, the
attorneygeneral consulted with him
upon the question. 1t was OBJ
vious that it was matter
of great importance whether he
the circumstances He concurred in
the judgment of the attorney-genera raj
that the cases ought not TO be tined at
this time. He thought there were public
grounds on which the trial ought to
be stayed al this time. The attorney
general may have said that day could
be fixed for the hearing, but he did not
DO this 70 su~--ise the defend
ents, and this constitutes no reason
for him to study the matter and reach
q conclusion the !. - dangerous to
the right of trial OF the case. The state
OF Wisconsin is challenging a judgment
which is OF great importance to
the state, aud if we took
the risk of mistrial OF the
case, it would be neglect of duty. The
learned gentlemen on the other side
have nothing TO lose and every