The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1906-07-26
JUDGE BARTCH WILL
RETIRE FROM BENCH
Chief Justice Of Utah Supreme
Court to Send Resignation
to Governor Today.
HE WILL STEP DOWN
AND OUT OCTOBER |
Governor VIII Appoint Success
sOr, Who Will Have Three
Months to Serve.

from the bench. He will step down and
out on October l, to engage in the prac-
tice Of the law. His resignation, 1t is
understood. will be filed with Governor
Cutler today Judge Bartch will enter
into partnership with former Attorney
General John A. Bagley of Idaho in the
practice Of the profession to which he
has devoted so many years. His re-
tirement from the bench will be re-
GREETED by tho bar and by his host of
friends outside the profession.
Governor Cutler will likely fll the
vacancy caused by the Chief Justice &
retirement. His successor will have
three months to serve, as Justice
Bartch' 3 term would have expired on
December 81 Of the present year.
Justice Bartch's g Career.
Chief Justice G. W. Bartch came 10
Salt Lake City in March, 1883, and
prac ticed law here until October, 1889,
when he was appointed judge Of the
Probate court for Salt Lake county. by
President Harrison, to which position
ho was reappointed by the Same Presi-
dent. January 4, 1898, he was ap-
pointed Associate Justice Of the Su-
preme court Of tho Territory of Utah,
by President Harrison, and assigned To
tho First and Third districts to hold
he held his position during President
Cleveland 8 administration, being the
only Republican Territorial officer that
held office under President Cleveland in
Utah until Statehood, In November,
1895, no was elected Justice Of the Su-
preme court OF the State and drew the
hve-year term. He was Chief Justice
during 1899 and 1900, and was re-
elected November 8, 1000, and Is serv-
ing his second Term as Chief Justice of
tho State.
He served three years ns Judge of
the Probate court, and almost four
teen years ns member of the Supreme
court Of Utah.
Decisions by Judge Bartch.
While ho WIS judge Of the Probate
court no was reversed only twice by the
District court, and these reversals were
in tho Pratt case and the Atwood case
In the Pratt case, Judge Bartch held
that polygamous children in tho Terri
tory of Utah were entitled to inherit
from their fathers estate. This de
cision was contrary TO the former de
cisions of the robate, the District and
in Chapman VS.. Handley, Utah, 40;
and in Copo's estate, Utah, 63, that
polyGamous children could not inherit
from their father 3 estate under the
laws of Utah. The Pratt case created
much comment locally and was reversed
by the District court and appealed to
the Supreme court. The Handley and
Cope cases were then pending on appeal
in the Supreme court of the United
States. In tho Cope case the Federal
Supreme court reversed the Utah Su
preme court, and thereby sustained the
views of Judge Bartch. 137, U. S. 6s2
and on the authority of that decision
tanned by the Utah Supreme court, re.
versing the District court which had
reversed him. Z Utah, 27s. The At
wood case was a complicated case IN
der will. The Distri let court re
versed Judge Bartehf but the Supreme
sustained him. Il Utah. page l.
While on the Probate bench he en-
forced rigid compliance with statute.
and decided many important cases un-
der the law of real property and the
law relating to Wills and to trust es-
tates.
His career in the District court, dur
torial Government, is no less interest
ing, On the Third District bench
alone, not including any of his dects
ions in cases tried before him in the
First and Second districts, Judge
Bartch rendered over 1900 apPealable
4 1,,,J a,frh n3r
decisions in all the districts were re
versed, and one of the Teversals has
since been overruled, leaving but seven
reversals, Rs appears from tho records
His Work In Supreme Court.
In the Supreme court, where there are
three Judges, there have been handed
down, excluding dissenting. opinions,
since Statehood, January !, 1896, up to
January, 1906, s41 opinions, and of
number of the cases dc
cided by the Supreme court were ap'
pealed to the Supreme court of the
United States No case was reversed
by that court where Judge Barteh
wrote the original opinion on the sub
ject. Many of the most important opln-
ons he has written and which have re-
,eived the most favorable comment are
.hose in cases involving statutory and
construction, equity law.
md irrigation and mining law. Among
uch cases are;
Haaamau VS. Kurrlck. Utnh, as6.
Pooplo VS. NcAllister, 10 Utah, 95I.
ioncrs, IL Utah. 37s.
Chambers VS. Emory. 19 Utah. 35i.
Hall VS. Railway company. ID Utnh, 2d8.
Richio VS.. Richards IL Utah, S0l
Hamilton VS. Dooly rs Utah. $50,
Woyeth, II. & N. Go, va JnneS'Spsnoer B.
bsserst irrigation company VI. MoIutyyo,