Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1891-11-12


ouarles-Regular November Term the
Proper Time for Trial.
MADISON, Wis, Nov. 3.-Judge New
man decided in the Harshaw treasury
ssse to-day that he had no jurisdiction
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 OConnor said that after
Judge Siebecker had determined that
ne could not sit and try the case, the At
torney-General began to inquire as to
the legality of another Judge coming
IN and trying the case. He regretted
that he 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 mistrial. The attor-
neys for the defendants had been mott
tied OF the existing legal point which
might invalidate the trial. The order
made provided for Judge Siebecker's
hearing the case at chambers on Oc-
tober 81, as of the Juneau County term.
The encouragement 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
etantiate the position assumed by
the state, that the Judge could
not call in another judge
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
to call in another judge no stipulation
the attorneys which would permit the
trial before such judge. Here
was cited case found in
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 246,
the Court said that consent of
parties cannot give circuit
court jurisdiction. Under all these de-
cisions 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
as to the jurisdiction, and If
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 a question
of Jurisdiction raised he would simply
address the court as "Your Honor"
He thought the arguments ought to be
heard to-day as before Judge Siebecker
He recited 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
the se''e court D"t to try. when the
attorney brought this action he
obtained jurisdiction of the person
and the circuit court jurisdiction of the
subject matter. Jurisdiction is simply
the power in court or at chambers
to try cause. According to the attor-
nev-general's position the Court 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 generals logic is
Tiehts than a E'stoken bottle" no matter
what insult might be offered him
It 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, 1t 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
oDposition 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. 1.-The were called to try other
cases as we'll, the Montana case might
he pertinent; but it is differ
emit under these circumstances.
The judge OF this judicial cir
cult was clothed with full power to
try case in vacation. The Juneau
County term does not enter into
the matter in any way what
ever. Dy virtue of the statute
and stipulation Judge siebeck-
err had jurisdiction. A cause
arises which prompts him to
this other judge was clothed
with all the authority to hold court in
vacation and sit and try the cases