Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1911-01-31
JUDGE HUNTER REFUSES TO
STATE TIME OF HEARING AP.
PEAL UNTIL HE GIVES MOTION
MORE THOUGHT.
MANY. ATTORNEYS
OBJECT TO ADVANCE
MUCH DISCUSSION FOLLOWS MO.
TON TO PREFER HEARING OF
STATEMENT OF CONSENT IN
JANUARY TERM OF COURT.

JANUARY TERM OF COURT.
Considering the cases of private
itigants that are now among those as
signed for the January term OF district
court and stating that the statutes 40
not provide for any special preference
In cases as that In the motion, Judge
F. M. Hunter tbs afternoon refused to
make. a decision as to whether he
would advance the hearing of, the sa-
loon petition appeal, and urged the
counsel Interested to agree on re-
ference for the hearing OF the appeal.
The statement of the court came
ut the close Of considerable discussion
among the members of the bar many
OF whom were not interested as at
torneys In the saloon petition motion,
but talked for the interest of the cases
which they are representing and which
they did not want sacrificed for the
hearing Of the appeal. Attorney G.
w, Whitmore began the talkfest that
was soon afterward to become quite
general. Mr.. Whitmore reviewed the
story of the statement of consent, its
treatment by the supervisors, the ap-
neal and filing of the bond by both con-
testant and prepayment and closed up
his remarks by asking the court to ad-
vance the hearing on the appeal from
the board. He stated that he was
aware that it was embarrassing to the
members of the bar generally as we'll
as to the counsel interested to have
the matter advanced in that 1t tended
TO perfer the matter over other mat
tiers already. assigned, but urged the
Importance of the appeal and cited two
cases from the supreme court as max
Ing It the duty Of the court to advance
The matter.
Other Attorneys Are Heard.
Before Attorney Whitmore had got
ten rightly started in his plea to the
court. Attorney F. G. Orelup asked the
court for the right to object to the
advancement of the appeal on the
grounds that other attorneys had mat
tiers before the court for hearing that
are lust as important and should be
given the consideration they merit.
4 At the close of Attorney Whitmore's
remarks, Senator Smith, appearing
with Capt. w. H. c. Jaques and 10 h.
.Jaoues for the saloon men, arose and
stated to the court that they were
willinR, to have the case advanced or
set for this term If the court ordered.
Fl said the proponents would agree to
have the appeal argued any time in
this or the next term, or at any time
the court would see fit to fix the time
for hearing.
Mr.. Whitmore then stated to the
court that il the matter was let go
until next term or later there was
danger OF it not being reached for a
year in the regular assignment Of
cases. He said that the case Will take
two and probably three weeks to hear,
and for this reason he was DESTROYS to
have the matter come up this term.
Attorney NJ c. Gilmore asked the
court, on behalf of private litigants,
that the matter be not advanced. He
said that the interest Of the private
litiRant was as worthy Of consideration
by the court as was the saloon case
and objected to it's being advanced
over any of the cases Of the present
assignment.
Captain Jaques took different view
Of the time needed to hear the case to
that expressed by Mr.. Whitmore. He
stated that 1T should not take more
than week or ten days and cited the
length of time consumed by the board,
which illustration envoked a smile
from Mr.. Whitmore, who seemed to
think that reference a joke. Captain
Jauues said he objected to giving the
matter preference, although he was
satisfied to have the matter heard
whenever the court would fix upon 1t.
Cornell Objects.
Attorney Seneca Cornell objected to
the preferment of the appeal on the
grounds that the January term is the
time when the bar expects to have
most the jury work disposed of. He
cited the difficulty of securing juries
during the March term when the
and urged the objection to preferrfng
the matter, saying that it should take
its course
Attorney G. l.. Gillies stated that
while the contestants did not want 10
hamper the trial of any cases assigned,
the Importance of the matter was such
that he thought an arrangement could
be effected for it's hearing by continu-
ing the jury in force for four weeks
longer and that would leave three
weeks at the end Of the term for the
disposition of the appeal and such
other matters not needing a jury.
The court then took the matter in
hand and told the attorney that he
would not decide this afternoon but
would take the matter under advise
ment for time. He said that in some
Of the cases brought under the mulct
law there is preference given but this
is not one of those kind of cases. 'If
the legislature wishes preferment in |
such cases, think the same would
have been shown in the statutes said