Reporter and farmer. [volume] (Webster, Day County, Dakota [S.D.]) 188?-1946, 1908-10-01

had made arrangements to be pres.
ent aud try the case at that time
We again repeat that no continuance
was ever granted by Judge Mccoy
at the request of the defendant com
pany. The defendants ATTORNEYS
never asked for a continuance ano
no live man can produce a witness
in support of the allegations of the
attorney general, nor can the attor.
ney general point out the time OF
place when the defendant ever asked
that this case be continued. 1t is
very evident that the attorney gen.
eral has been misinformed and has
relied upon the word of some person
who has had an interest in deceiving
him.
The attorney general owes it to
himself, to his Office and to the peo-
pie of Day county to investigate the
facts in relation to this alleged
request for a continuance. which he
says was made by the defendants
attorneys, and to ascertain the truth
and publish it over his own sigma
ture, to the people of Day county,
and we challenge him to do so.
Now the facts are that immedi
ately after the court had set Septem-
Der 2lst for the trial of this case, it
began to be currently reported that
the attorney general would not be
present to try the case on that day.
The defendants attorneys never did
believe that this case would ever be
tried at any time, although they had
always been ready and willing and
anxious to try the case. They did
not believe at any time prior to Sep
TENDER 21st that the attorney gen
eral would be on the ground pre-
pared with his witnesses to try this
case, and in fact he was not here.
He never subpoened a witness to
appear on the 2lst day of Septem-
Der to try the case. A fact which
was substantiated by the records of
the court. He did not appear him
self, nor did any representative
appear for him at the court house in
Webster on the 2lst day of Septem-
Der, the day set for trial. The
defendants attorneys were there,
ready to meet any move which the
attorney general might make, but he
made none.
1t is true that Mr.. Dougherty, the
assistant attorney general, came to
Webster on the evening of Saturday,
the 10Th day of Septemb and
stayed in Webster over Sunday. but
it is equally true that he came on
private business of the firm of Rob-
ertson Il Dougherty, for the purpose
OF taking an appeal in the case of
Smalley vs.. Lasell. 1t is true that
he did take such appeal while here,
that is, he left the appeal bond and
undertaking with the local represen-
tative, by whom they were served on
Monday, on the opposing attorneys,
and Mr.. Dougherty left on the early
morning train on Mon lay morning,
and was not present in the court
room on the 2lst, the day set for the
trial of the case.
We challenge the attorney general
to show by any record that he has
done one single act looking to the
trial Of that case, on the day set for
trial by the court.
1t is true that in perfect keeping
with all of his proceedings in this
matter, the attorney general did,
about the 14th day of September,
through his local representatives in
Webster, cause to be served on the
attorneys of the Williams Bros.
Lumber company, notice that dep
ositions would be taken in the town
of Wall, in Pennington county, on
the 18th Of September, 1908. This
notice did not contain the names OF
any witnesses whose dispositions
would be SO taken. Il was apparent
1t the time shat the purpose of serv-
ing this notice was to embarass the
friends Of David Williams, who were
at that time making preparations for |
! banquet to him, which was to be |
On the 10Th. II was believed that |
the service Of this notice to take
1epositions, like all the rest of the
proceedings, did not have in view
legitimate purpose. This opinion
Vas confirmed by the result. The