The Dickinson press., 1901-12-07
JUDGE LAUDER

The Supreme Court Finds That
He Has Been Negligent in His
Duty and Decides Against
Him.
Judge Lauder Talks Back Sharply
to the Court, Says That He
Has Been Wrongcd and that
He Will Take AN Appeal to the
People of, the State Of North
Dakota.
The supreme court decision against
Judge Lauder is causing a good deal Of
talk throughout the state. The, dis,ric,
Judge has issued a letter to the public.
in which he does not hesitate TO criticise
the supreme court, giving his reasons
therefor, and it is more than likely tina,
the matter will become more or less Of a
factor in the next state convention. The
Press gives both sides Of the case in or.
der that its readers may be posted.
A synopsis of the supreme courts de.
cision, handed down Nov. ~. is as fol.
lows:
The supreme court has decided the
mLndaMus cases brought against Judge
w. S. Lauder of the Fourth judicial dis.
trict by Attorney McCumber & Forbes
and treerks & FIeerks, for clients for
whom they had cases in court, which
they claimed Judge Lauder would no,
try or call in another judge To dispose Of
The bitterness of the controversy, es.
pecially as between Senator McCumbes
and Judge Lauder, attracted state in.
teresl and the decision will be received
with equal interest through the state.
The upper court holds against Judge
Lauder hnding that he has failed and
neglected and still fails and neglects t,
perform his official duty as required BY
the statutes. and directs Clerk HoskinS
0f the supreme court to issue a peremp.
tory writ Of mandamus directed to Judg.
Lauder, directing that official to proceed
forthwith 10 arrange for the trial Of the
cases in question. Costs in the proceed
ings are taxed against Judge Lauder and
he is required to make return to the, 81.
preme court on or before December 20
showing what he has done in the matter
The principal point in controversy in
the case was as to the nature of the
efforts Of Judge Lauder to obtain another
Judge to thy the civil cases in which aft.
davits of prejudice had been filed. The
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 eff.
fort 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 com
municated with him regarding the mat.
ter. Winchester further stating that if he
had had a week or ten days notice he
could have presided at the trial Of the
with Judge Lauder that the necessities
of caring for the grain crop in Richland
county was a good excuse for discharg.
of farmers. The cour says: Terms Of
SocAs " "P!0''aNsuO y 10" o"u suotiSkio
lative assembly representing the whole
people is presumed to have fixed the
times of holding court with reference &c
the interests of all the people. 1t is tc
the regular judicial tribunals that the
citizens and taxpayer may look, and mol
elsewhere, for the redress Of grievance.
and for the protection Of life. liberty and
property. The interests OF suitors are
especially safeguarded by the law and
every lawyer knows that repeated and
~vexatious delays in the courts are often
tantamount to a denial of justice"
Regarding the adjournment of the
term Of court at Wahpeton the day be,
lore the writ issued by the supreme
court vas served; ordering Judge Lauder
not to adjourn the term, or to show cause
if be did so. the court says: 1.-THE wri,
was served,the next day after the distric,
court adjourned and since such service
the respondent has had tull opportunity
to show cause why he has failed to per.
form the duty laid upon him by the
statute. Has the respondent succeeded
in. showing cause1 We are constrained
by the uRdisputed facts in the record to
answer the question IN the negative. l,
is conceded that no outside Judge has
Fever appeared in Richland county to try
any oil these cases except Judge Fisk
alone, who was called after said adjourn.
ment to try court cases at the adjourned
term in October. No claim IL made that
any Judge has been arranged for or pro.
cured to try the large majority of the
cases,i. e, the jury cases. W. have
seen that the defendant wholly failed
and neglected to act in the premises at
any time within the long period which
elapsed between tho adjournment OF this
court in January and when it reconvened
on July 2, 1901. We have further noticed
the leisurely. way in which after couri
convened in July, the respondent wen,
about the duty OF requesting outside
judges, one at time, to attend Tor the
trial Of these cases. Finally we have
seen that alter the respondent was duly
informed that Judge Cowan would attend
and preside in these cases at n c on re.
spondent's request therefor that the re-
spondent then and there promptly adj
journed his court and by such adjourn.
ment effectually defeated the purpose
for which the request had been previous
" made by the respondent.
The following is the syllabus of the
decision:
Mandamus proceeding. In the exer-
else Of its experimenting control over
courts Of inferior jurisdiction an alterna-
tive writ was issued out of this court
and was served upon the respondent in
this proceeding. The affidavit upon
which the alternative writ issued stated
in effect that the respondent had failed
and neglected to call in the judge of an
other district to preside in the plaintiffs
cases involved herein and in which the
respondent was disqualified to preside
under the provisions of section 5454a,
Revised Codes Of 1899. Pursuant to the
requirements of the writ respondent
showed cause by answer to said writ be-