Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1901-11-21
CASE Of JUDGE LAUDER.
Supreme Court Finds that He Has
Been Negligent in his Duty in s..
Not Calling in Judge. .
Orders Him to Call in Judge and Have
Cases Pending Tried at Ear
hest Moment.
Costs in the Case are Taxed Against
The Judge-What the Supreme
Court Says.

The supreme court has decided the
mandamus cases brought against
Judge W. S. Lauder of the Fourth jul
dicial district by Attorneys McCumber
& Forbes and Freerks & Freerks, for
clients for whom they had cases in
court, which they claimed Judge Lau-
der would not try or call in another
judge to dispose Of. The bitterness
of the controversy, especially as be-
tween Senator McCumber and Judge
Lauder, attracted state interest and the
decision will be received with equal
interest through the state. The upper
court holds against Judge Lauder,
finding that he has failed and neglected
and still fails and neglects to perform
his official duty as required by the stat
utes, and directs Clerk Hoskins of the
supreme court to issue a peremptory
writ of mandamus directed to Judge
Lauder, directing that official to pro-
coed forthwith to arrange for the trial
of the cases in question. Costs in the
proceedings are taxed against Judge
Lauder, and he is required to make re-
turn to the supreme court on or before
December 20, showing what he has
done in the matter.
The decision in the case is a long one
and goes fully into the matters in con-
troversy. 1t was written by Justice
Wallin of the supreme court and covers
twenty pages of closely typewriter
matter. The allegations of the plain
tiffs in the matter, which were that
Judge Lauder had refused either to try
their or to call in another judge
to try them, and that when a writ of
mandamus had been issued by the ST.
preme court to compel him to hear the
cases, he had adjourned the term Of
court before the writ could be served
upon him, are related and the court
bases its findings upon the facts sub
mitted in evidence and the state law
covering the question of the Duties Of
district judges in trying cases where
afidavits of prejudice have been filed
as were filed in the case in question.
The principal point in controversy
in the case was as to the nature of the
efforts of Judge Lauder to obtain an
ether judge to try the civil cases in
which afidavits of prejudice had been
filed. This matter is gone into closely
by the court Judge Lauder in his
brief and affidavit stated that he had
communicated with a number of judges
in the state in an effort to get them to
come to Wahpeton and try the cases.
But an affidavit was presented to the
|, supreme court from Judge Winchester
of the Sixth district stating that Judge
Lauder had not communicated with
him regarding the matter, Winchester
further. stating that if he had had a
week OF ten days notice he could have
= presided ait the trial Of the cases. The
supreme court does not hold with
Judge Lauder that the necessities OF
, caring for the grain crop in Richland
/ COUNTY was a good excuse for dischaTg-
} ing the jury which was composed
mainly of farmers. The court says:
!. Terms of court are appointed by Law
and the legislative assembly represent.
ing the whole people is presumed tc
have fixed the times of holding court
), with reference to the interests of al
the people. 1t is to the regular judi