The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-02-28
Second DAY SESSION.
.,os JUDGES ADJOURN WITH
orT MAKING RULES
VIII he Held July ID, and
w~nv, VIII Re Made 60 Have .
.s the Superior Judges
~. state Prerent-Committee
.,,~a 10 Prepare Ruies-

assembly OF superior court Judges
1-s-sous parts OF the state wnicn vas
- rr,4sy a. the cour recos1-
$50 -sssssszy TnoTning. Aas Asas at
vsss1 es s-s~nssaed excuse Tor adjourn
tsses-... ..o- are de, ard before rules OF
Sxas 1890 r. co9rts o. the state are
Ssssts--ss - stteulpt vii be made 70 get
es1se '.~ s.e.av ef Judges together y was
49, a meeting be he'd July l2, tao
s-'1s.s~-s tss convention OF the State
60 ..sarsa.soa. 4 number OF lawyers
- s me debate yesterday ny insisa-
C. .saekss hssss stood az ios0 before
-. su6.ss xere called 10 orcer- Judge
ss-ass stated that the nFst business VI tns
g. So vas the rsaGIng o. the general
IS q court pracfice' ~iAa a Vie" 10
~.~ArnsEt OF adoption
80. = II. H01gs0n thought that as al
-. sraxr.or Judges were DOT n sttsnc-
w - ever a ma tossty. II would Be pre-
49, -. fer ssyen or eight 10 attempt TO
So 49, - s5op; rules. He thsrefcrs moved
-, sch action be postponed unth later
4 sss session.
rss~s !. A. Williamson also spoke IN
-. 81 r,astoazinE consideration OF ths
~ us be'ssvsd that H a more general
s-.ss~.+son had been issued, practically
.~,s,. sezcr Of the state would have
1900 He did not recall any impera-
ssyms-d he sad for change IN the
- a. they are at present. The primal
- 81 ussilaR together was, he
.ss.ss. the promotion Of good-feIlowship
.~s-r TIE Judges. lie recommended an
Assured meeting.
-. Arthur suggested that an appro-
..sate time FOR the superior judges TO hold
~,ss.fns " onld be two days before the
~.~~essIoa OF the State Bar Association.
- ,ar TgIy Il motion TO that effect
20 carried. ani the following resolution
ss passed:
..,slrfea. ore from Spokane county, one
f-sr Pierce county and one from King
sssnty. 10 consider the subject OF the re-
s.ssen Of the rules Of the superior courts
ss-slsssn,ly with existing statutes and re-
~ then AZ the adjourned meeting"
Re shls was added an invitation 10 SUI
srpfae court Judges 10 attend the conven-
80 Jusxe Langley suggested that a
sanm.,tse selected from those three coun-
,s.s would be made up OF al one kind OF
s,sxss II was useless 70 think. he said.
,ast rules which fitted Judge having only
ore esstrict TO look after could be salts
berry 10 one whose time was divided be-
fTsea two districts.
re number OF the committee was In
= A Williamson. OF Pierce: Judge r. =.
Person. o. King: Judge I. y. Prather, OF
sanxare: Judge r. q. McClinton. OF Clal-
sz. Jefferson and Island counties. Judge
Mn Goodman. OF Columbia, Garfield and
Asota.
Ts Williams bill. relating TO the sub
rlsslsn OF interroga tories to turies in the
superior court. came up again yesterday.
r. day before a proposed amendment
ss.--Fsas
esngaiary rather than "a now. optional.
Wa voted down. Judge Williamson asked
fAAi the vote taken yesterday he recon-
saersi He said the only province OF
iary vas TO pass upon facts. not law. and
tAaaghf fury had too broad discretion
sry power IN being allowed 20 pass on all
twass &x ore returning a verdict for the
vaals either for or against.
issn 2. HUMPHREYS also spoke on the
shaa'ags OF interroEatories. saying that
h case IN Indiana ne had submitted
slss'y-three questions 20 the Jury.
fssge w Fl II. kean conten6ed that
O. presentation OF interrogatories was
fsseeFed optional in the present law. and
tAas he thought II should be. rather than
compulsory. II was an attempt 10 con-
srset the functions OF n judge. IL was
re duty OF the court 20 instruct "A Jury
az % what the issues Of a case are. The
tafge stood between the contending par
rs and was the proper party TO decide
seas issues should 80 90 the Jury.
Leave some functions TO a Judge" he
sseiznsi, save that of presiding over
case Ike fg1ireheaa."
II replying. Judge Williamson said that
a. Issue vas something affirmed by the
ea.n'Ant and denied by the defendant.
We authority would be taken from the
Esga. ne said. because no matter how
rany written issues might he submitted
" attorneys To the Judge. the latter might
sslect only those brought out In the plead
tgs
A. W. Hastie thought the code should
se' oe 'ampered with. unless for some
HEef'snt reason. and here tire conten-
u vas merely on the substitution OF
saaN' fer may" making IL compul-
sy 10 submit interrogatoTsss. when
sea stack one % these codes you tackle
seTetAing that had better Re looked into
saFsfaly," he said. The matter had been
1aSnt ~. Re said. ~ John r.. Hum
Fsnss who, as lawyer was DESTROYS OF
ssl'alins the power o. Judges. TIE aues-
tAken On reconsideration was lost.
ne meeting adjourned sine die. The
1sA1 gathering will be held July Is.