The San Francisco call., 1896-02-27
Double Sets of Deputy Sheriffs
Clerks, Lawyers, Clients
and Witnesses.
A COMPLETE JUDICIAL TIE-UP.
Bailiffs Rush Frantically About, Un.
able to Set the Machinery
in Motion.

vades that section of the Courthouse. On
the contrary, confusion reigned supreme.
There was a racing and chasing of Deputy
Sheriffs, there were orders given to clerks
that were as quickly countermanded,
and the spectacle of two Judges, two sets
of litigants and lawyers and two swarms
of witnesses all in one courtroom. afforded
the big crowd of spectators an unusual
sight.
Judge Daingerfield of San Francisco
held court in Department l yesterday in
the case of Wesley Mocks vs.. the City of
Santa Rosa, sustaining the demurrer of
defendants to the affidavit of plaintiff ask
ing that the Mayor and Common Council
and Contractor Perkins show cause why
they should not be punished for contempt
OF court.
This question having been disposed of.
court was adjourned until 9 80 o'clock this
morning to take up the petition of plaintiff
for an injunction restraining defendants
from further proceedings on the new
water works.
Judge Dougherty, presiding Judge of the
Superior Court of this county, arrived at
the Courthouse this morning about 9
o'clock. His clerk and stenographer were
anxious to know where the third depart
ment of court would be held. He in
formed them that he would proceed at 10
o'clock with a criminal case in Depart
ment 1, and ordered them to be in readi-
ness at that time.
At $50 Judge Daingerfeld took seat
upon the bench of Department l and
formally opened court, but there was no
clerk and no stenographer. The bailiff
was dispatched in hot haste to bring in the
missing officials, but returned shortly and
reported that the clerk could not be found,
and that the court reporter Of that depart
ment refused to come.
Attorneys Lynch and Farquar for plain
tiff thereupon posted off to the clerks
office and demanded the papers in the
case. which County Clerk Fulton refused
to deliver.
AT this stage of the judicial game moth
ing could exceed the stately calm of
Judge de Haven, special counsel for the
city, and his associates, Judge Rutledge
and City Attorney Cowen, seemed quite
resigned to the situation. On the other
hand, Attorneys Lynch and Farquar, for
plaintiff, grew more excited every mo-
ment, Mr.. Farquar declaring it to be
lob" and dramatically demanding to
know where he was att
Just at this time Judge Dougherty
stepped from the cham bers into the court
room to try the criminal case upon his
calendar. The two Judges, after a few
words, withdrew to the chambers OF the
presiding Judge, where they remained
closeted for nearly an hour. What took
place there only the Judges know, but
shortly before IL o'clock Judge Dougherty
ascended the bench and called the case of
the People VS.. Fisher. A jury being de-
manded by the defendant, the case was
postponed until tomorrow at 10 o'clock to
allow a venire of thirty jurors to be
drawn, and Judge Dougherty proceeded
with the city case as soon as the criminal
case was over.
A review of the case of Mock VS.. The
City shows that Judge Dougherty, if not
disqualified by reason of being a tax
payer, felt some delicacy about trying the
case, and suggested to the attorneys that
he would request any Superior Judge
whom they might agree upon to come here
and hear the case in its various phases.
Accordingly the attorneys stipulated that
Judge DaingerfieId should be requested.
On two or three occasions, the matter
appearing on the calendar, Judge Danger
field was invited by the presiding Judge to
occupy his bench and accepted the invita-
ton.
Later on the attorneys for plaintiff ap-
peared before Judge Daingerfeld in his
chambers in San Francisco with certain
petitions and affidavits, upon which the
Judge made the orders now being dis
posed of.
These matters were set for February 10,
and on that day the San Francisco Judge,
without any special invitation, and in the
absence of Judge Dougherty, organized a
court and proceeded under the strenuous
objections of counsel for the city to hear
the motions, and after partial hearing
the matter was continued until Feb
ruary "a.
Yesterday Judge Daingerfeld again
opened court without an invitation from
the presiding Judge, which was held until
late hour and adjourned to meet at 80
o'clock this morning, when the conflict of
Jurisdiction occurred.
In an interview with CALL representa-
tive Judge Dougherty called attention to
section II of the Code of Civil Procedure,
which reads:
|
A Judge of any Superior Court may hold the
Superior Court in any county at the request of
the Judge or Judges of the Superior Court
| thereof, and the Judge holding the court shall
have the same power the Judge thereof.
Continuing, Judge Dougherty said
my construction of this section is that
the power of a foreign Judge to act de-
pends upon the request, and that the
power only exists while he is holding the
court; that he can only hold court in the
county when he is invited. No power to
act outside of the county is found in the
statute. Any other construction of this
section would lead to the greatest incon-
venience and confusion. If the Judge
who has been invited once to hear one
phase of the case can construe it into a
continuous request and by reason thereof
entertain ex parte applications and set
them for fixed DAYS in the court where he