The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-08-06

and acquitted by jury of his peers in the
! due progress of judicial events All this
might happen in the regular course OF the
| law, and strictly in line with the practices
| of the higher and the lower courts. but
| 1t would in effect be a reversal of the su-
| premc court by the district court, insofar
! as the question of the guilt or innocence
| of the accused was involved in the issue!
! He would stand before the world legally
! innocent of crime of which he had been
! previously found guilty by the court of
last resort! Withal it would present a
very queer judicial enlargement, among
4 the possibilities of the situation. However,
the courts may be relied upon to act
justly and determine the case on it's mer-
its.
That is to say in the contingency
specified the lower court would be a
higher court than the higher court, the
higher court would be the lower court,
the lower court the higher court, the
higher the lower, the lower the higher,
high, low, jack and the game! Again,
to follow the Inter Mountains sugges-
ton to it's logical conclusion, suppose
the lower court should try the higher
court and acquit it of the charge of
disbarment (Foraker VS.. Hanna, 179
! Ohio. S43) and suppose Welcome should
try the disbarment and find he didn't
like it, would he acquit himself, and,
if so, with or without glory, and how
much, cash down, f. o. b!
Or, to make it still palmer, suppose
the district court should adjudge the
supreme court guilty of contempt of
court (B. Plat Carpenters Theory
and Practice Of Surprises" PIP. 70 TO
$40 inclusive) and suppose Welcome
should issue a writ of alternative man
damus to show cause why habeas cor
pus proceedings should not be perma-
| nently enjoined to compel the supreme
court against trespassing on, over. upon
| and into all and singular of the dips,
spurs and angles of the district court,
whether and to what extent and in such
case dies non nolle prosequi arma
virumque cano ad Item quo war
ranto!
Suppose, too. as it has been held in
this state people vs. w. A. Clark, %
Montana, 2S5; People vs. Tommy Ho-
gan, IS Montana. 1922 that while he also
ran he fell down en- route, but that is
rot necessarily violatlve of the general
rule of law that the supreme court
(Cats VS.. Rats, 10 Back Alley, passing
knowingly, willfully malciously, fe-
loniously and habitually whether in the
jurisdiction of the issue or the materi-
ality of the moral turpitude and ad-
instability of the relevancy of the quod
erat demonstrandum,
Let us take one more hypothetical
case, which esta blishes the correctness
Of the Inter Mountains position beyond
possibility of controversy: Suppose the
supreme court should disbar Welcome
and the district court should set aside
the judgment and order a new trial,
costs to abide the event; and suppose
the supreme Welcome should district
the disbar court and the court disbar
should supreme the district Welcome,
the interesting situation would arise
wherein the discome of the Wellcourt
would subar the premetrict and the
| Wellbar of the courtcome would neces-
| sarily sutrct the dispreme! AS the
Inter Mountain justly says this would
present a very queer judicial entangle-
ment among the possibilities of the
situation" 1t would, indeed. Still we
have the Inter Mountains positive as
'surance that the courts may be relied
| upon to act justly and determine the
case on it's merits"-and that's some
| thing.