The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1897-01-12
Unusual Happening Before
the Supreme Court
Yesterday.
Ex.Justice Works Verbally. At
tackled for Language in
a Brief.
Allegation That Judge Torrance Was
Disqualified to Sit in a Case
Makes Trouble.

Three attorneys from San Diego took
part in an unusual scene before the Su-
preme Court, in bank, yesterday after
noon. They were Justice of the Supreme
Court John D. Works, City Attorney II.
E. Doolittle of the city of San Diego and
Judge Gibson of the law firm of
Gibson & Titus. Two of the attorneys,
namely Messrs. Gibson and Doolittle, used
harsh language concerning ex- Justice
Works, and asked that an appeal which
he had taken should be denied, and also
that the brief which had been filed by him
should be stricken from the file.
The suit which was in question is that
of the San Diego Water Company against
the city of San Diego and others. This
action was brought against the city of
San Diego and certain of its officers and
the Southern California Mountain Water
Company to declare void and set aside
contract for the purchase of water-right
to 1000 inches of water and the construc-
tion of a distributing system for the city,
and to enjoin the issuance OF bonds by
San Diego in the sum of 800, 600 TO pay
for the same. The case came before the
Supreme Court on an appeal denying the
motion of counsel for the San Diego Water
Company for a change of venue. The mo-
ton was denied by Judge Torrance, and
the hot words used yesterday grew out of
the wording of the brief filed by ex-Jus-
tice Works before the Supreme Court.
Some of the passages in the appellants
brief were read and dwelt upon, these re-
ferring to Judge Torrance. Some of the
passages were as follows:
The cause OF this action is twofold: % To
set aside as illegal and void a contract be-
tween the city and the Southern California
Mountain Company, involving an expendi-
ture of 81, 100000 by the city. (2) To enjoin
the issuance of the bonds of the city in said
sum to carry out the contract. In both of
these questions the Judge of the court below
was directly and pecuniariIy involved.
That the conditions were such that Judge,
in justice to himself and the parties interested,
but particularly in justice to himself, would
have been justified in declining to sit as
Judge, no right-minded Judge or lawyer will
deny. He has not seen fit to exercise this
right, but has driven US to the unpleasant
task OF asserting and attempting to maintain
that he was legally disqualified to try the case
We say unpleasant task, because it is never
pleasant for a lawyer TO take the position that
q Judge has violated the doctrine, so jealousy
guarded by law, that no man shall sit as a
Judge in his own case. 1t is usually taken by
the judge as personal reflection upon him,
and it is such reflection, and one OF the most
serious character, where the Judge has know
ingIy and wlllfully asserted his right to sit in
the case. But while the duty of an attorney
under such circuns tauces is not a pleasant
one, it is none the less duty that he has no
right to shirk or neglect.
There were two portions of ex-Justice
Works brief which particularly, in con-
nection with the foregoing, called out en-
phatic words from the other attor ney.
The following is one:
If the Judge has acted in good faith, and
simply erred as to the law which govern his
action, it is only error, and casts no retiec-
tion upon his integrity as a Judge. If he has
willfuIiy persisted in trying a case where he is
disqualified, no condemnation can be too
severe.
The concluding paragraph of the brief
OF The ex-Justice also caused the opposing
lawyer to censure. This was as follows:
There are many circumstances connected
with the case but not appearing in the record
that would show, perhaps, as clearly any
case ever submitted to the courts for deter
mination, the strict wisdom of the rule laid
Uo"H III Inc ucC4deu SaSe aSdIH any dct4OA
being taken in q cause by Judge who can
be reasonably suspected of being influenced
by self-interest and the gross Improperly of a
Judge knowingly taking such action where
suspicion exists.
Before the opposing counsel spoke ex-
Justice Works read an explanation of his
brief. BE denied that in his brief he had
impugned the motives of Judge Torrance,
aDd claimed that he was simply pointing
out that it was improper for a Judge to
sit in case in which he was concerned,
and said that Judge Torrance was con-
cerned in the litigation in question by
being an owner of taxable property in
San Diego to the amount of $4,000, also
as taxpayer and water-rate payer.