Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1901-07-16
HIS NE COURT HARD
Lawyers in an Appeal Accuse
Supreme Court of Enact
Ing Legislation.
Claim the Court Has Reversed
Itself and a Federal Court
Decision.
Appeal Is on the Celebrated JET
ferson County Alston
Estate Case.
Appeal Is on the Celebrated JET.
:ial to Tlmes-Republican.

Special to Times Republican.
Des Moines, July 16.-In view of the
report of the law reform committee of
the state bar association in favor of a
radical reform in the manner of doing
business on the supreme bench, and
bearing in mind the sad experience of
two Hardin county lawyers who
Jumped onto" the supreme court with
language not tempered properly with
polite phrases, an argument for rehear-
ing in a Jefferson county case, with
brief, just filed in the court, will be
found decidedly interesting. The law
yers in this case have been adroit in
presenting their criticism of the SUI
prene court and its methods, but moth
ing quite so severe has appeared in
many years Beneath the smooth SEN
fences and the polished phrases there
lis that which strikes much harder at
the supreme court than anything put
into print by the lawyers who apollo
gized to escape sentence for contempt
The case is the famous Alton case from
Jefferson county. 1t involves the divis-
spected man who had lived more than
half a century in jefferson county.
| The claimant who has been decided an
heir had also lived in the county more
4 than a half century, and made good
his claim to being natural son of the
deceased 1t involves the construction
3of statute enacted in 1851 and the
| testimony which mostly relates to that
| period. The attorneys for the claimant
are Legget & AIcKemey and l. ID. Jones'
/ client being plaintiff in the case and
4 appellant The other side was repre-
sented by Rollin j. Wilson and Moses
a. McCoid. both conspicuous in south
4 eastern Iowa, one a former congress-
/ man and the other selected to preside
4 over the next republican state conyen-
A ton. In their argument they set UP
that the court has reversed itself, re-
I.versed the federal Court, but has fol-
4 lowed the dissenting opinion of Judge
4 Given in another case. has permitted
one Misunderstanding McClain-prac-
4 tically to decide the case, and has been
guilty of legislation. 1t was one of the
4 first of Justice McClain's decisions. and
he reversed Judge Eichelberger. The
motion for rehearng will be presented
at the October term and Will probably
be argued orally.
The case is that of William D Ais
ton vs.. William e. Aston and others
The question involved is the right OF
the plaintiff to share in an estate left
by William Aston. Of Fairfield, the
plaintiff claiming to be a natural son.
. He was born in 1913 or 49, his mother
a being a servant in hotel at Fairfield
and later was adopted by a family
named LeF'rance. but was named Will
s liam u. Aston and has ever since been
known by that name Plaintiff claimed
one fourth of the large estate left by
William Aston on the ground that
William Aston was his father and had
Recognized the fact publicly. Judge
; Eichelberger decided that there had
been no such recognition, the supreme
court decides there WAS. The opinion
was written by Judge Mccain. To an
outsider the decision appears to be
eminently fair and the reasoning good
!, But the attorneys for the defendants
start in their petition for rehearing
sa wing, We have read and studied the
opinion with care and the surprise
with which we received the first notice
!. of it has not diminished but increased.'
: and after a few other remarks is this
i paragraph:
Our surprise is not lessened to find
this done in a racing opinion, in the
, careless dash of language. running like
! "a pillow share thru all former decisions
of this court, and turning them over
: with joyous nonchalance, which. i,
anything which did not involve either
;. rights. would be admirable
: a
ment substituting our clients for cit
neys. proceeded, however to point on
some Inaccuracies and what they cal
g assumptions, and say:
I'VE marvel at these assumptions il
e the opinion. BY an attorney, made Ii
a the heat and inaccuracy of oral debate
y they might be expected"
Here are assumptions the suprem,
q court need not overlook. And the at
i torneys go on with this severe indict
!, ment of the present supreme bench:
we are compelled to ask u reheaiins
!. also because this opinion oyerturn
:. that of this court in the recent Watson
case, and is remarkable In this. tina
while the judge who tried that case
Justice Waterman. Is on the bench, an'
$ others who actively conc,rred in tn
: opinion are here, vet the dissenting
$ opinion of Justice Given, In that case
4 is substantially the opinion of the cour
s in this case. In fact, the dssentin,
n opinion is practically quoted in tn
!. present opinion. Views therein ex
$ pressed are made the law in this case
d 1t may be said that the court ha
!. changed its views since the Watsol
$ case was decided and that the dissent
ing opinion of Justice Given in tina
case expresses more nearly its views
If that is the case. we have not tn
grounds of confidence which we a
n present feel in presenting this pettio,
IT Much of the argument for rehearin
d is devoted to an effort to concvince tn
IS court that it has decided statute to b
- retrospective. Previous to 1851 tn
S, common law rule applied in Iowa in tn
,r code of 1851 it was provided that nat
,e ural heir could inherit II recognize,
case by Judge Shiras is relied upo
by appellees, who complain that tn
Iowa court has overruled Judge Shira'
n and they add:
n ..All we ask is a little more courtes.
r a little more consideration. little NOR
S judicial consistency. and Just littl
IS more will be sufficient"
v Then as IL to half apologize for bein
/ SO severely caustic and sarcastic, tn