The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-01-17
DUSENBERRY SCANDAL
Crops Up Again In Case In Supreme
Court.
x-
JUDGE RHODES ARGUMENT
ON APPEAL IN WHIPPLE VS..
WILLIAM PREECE.
Brigham City Consents to Judgment
In Favor of Deseret National
Bank-Utah Soap Company Liti-
gation-Petition For Writ of Ger
tiorari-Short Orders and Notes.

The state supreme court met yester-
day with Chief Justice Bartch, Justice
Baskin and District Judge McCarty on
the bench.
The case of Edward Whipple, appel
liant, VS.. William Preece ct al, was
argued by Mr.. L. r. Rhodes for the
appellant and briefs submitted by the
respondents counsel and the case was
taken under advisement by the court.
The plaintiff sued to recover the
possession of 100 head eff horses, colts
and mules, two cows and some farm
ing implements, valued at $4,000 in all,
alleged to have been wrongfully taken
by the defendants. Plaintiff also asked
for $4,000 damages.
The. case was tried before Judge
Dusenberry and q verdict for the de-
PENDANTS returned.
The appeal was based on misconduct
of the judge at the trial, the appel
lants counsel alleging that his honor
was hopelessly drunk and entirely I'M
fit, mentally, to try the cause sor give
instructions to the jury, and in fact,
gave no instructions to the jury, and
that he was completely under the in
fiuence of MIR. S. r. Thurman of counsel
for the defendant. who was trying to
sober him up. In consequence OF all
of which the plaintiff did not have a
fair trial.
This was one of the cases which was
thoroughly exploited when charges of
misconduct of various kinds made
against Judge Dusenberry We're in
vestigated by members of the bar and
the result, finding the judge guilty
reported to the governor.
Mr. Rhodes in his brief and argument
yesterday said among other things:
savory facts and conditions. and their
presentation to the appellate court is,
to counsel for appellant. a most painful
and unpleasant duty. Calling the at
tention of this court TO the undeniabie
drunken misconduct of the judge, dur
ing the trial of this case. is forced upon
counsel by the stern duty he owes TO
his client and the facts are in the
record. Such conduct at any time low
ers public confidence in the court; and
is doubly disgraceful. as well as preJu-
dicial TO liugants. when exhibited on
the bench, in the trial OF causes. Had
this case been tried before any other
Judge, or had the trial judge been sober,
and in proper mental conditions. this
appeal would not likely have been
necessary. If such drunkenness and
misconduct of the judge, in the trial OF
causes, as are disclosed by the record
proved, then will the confidence OF the
people in the judiciary be destroyed,
and the administration OF justice by
the courts be looked upon as farce.
Such conduct is as dangerous to the
rights of litigants as dishonesty, and
is emphatically trailing the judicial
ermine in the mire."
The attorneys for the respondents,
Leuthi, HoutZ, Warner and Thurman,
said in reply:
"A Judge is entitled to the respect of
members of the bar, to fair and candid
treatment from them, and no attorney
has the right, in or out of court, to
cast suspicion upon, or treat judge
with disrespect or indignity. Such
charge as has been made should be
made only when a good cause exists
therefor, and in this case such cause
cannot be found. The trial Judge is
entitled. at the hands of this court, to
q. full and careful consideration of the
entire records of the cause. If the con-
ditions existed that counsel would have
this court believe, it is plain that,
somewhere in the record. evidence of
the fact would exist. We cite the record,
with full assurance that there cannot
be found within it's lids, the first act
or omission that would indicate such
condition on the part of the judge. as
counsel for appellant would have this
court believe existed. But on the con-
trarv there is within it innuendo and
side remarks that do not become the
place and dignity of an attorney sworn
to maintain due respect for the judi
ciarV''