The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-08-13
JUDGE IS ACCUSED
BY MAN He FINED
Sensational Complaint Is Filed
in Idaho Court; Supreme
Court Asked to Intervene.
Special 10 The Tribune.


BOISE, Idaho, Aug. 12.-What is be
lieved TO be the most sensational ale,
CATION ever made in a complaint in
any court in the state of Idaho is that
included in the one filed in the district
court for Bingham county entitled Carl
Machold VS.. the Corbett Slough Ditch
company and the Grove City Ditch
company, wherein IL is alleged the
Judge in n former action committed per.
jury, that the court permitted attor-
neys TO fle documents he knew at the
time of the fling were false, and con
cludes with the startling statement
that "a license to practice law in
Bingham county includes a right TO
commit perjury, subornation of perjury
and to deceive the district Judge y
The result of the sensational charges
is claimed TO be the unlawful commit
ment of Machold in the Jail of Bing.
ham county, forcing his wife to make
A trip to Boise and here, appear before
Judge Stewart of the supreme court
in person and petition that an lnvesti-
CATION be made into her husband S case
In order that he may be released from
his unlawful Imprisonment
in his complaint against the ditch
companies, Machold declares that they
have chain Of canals and bitches in
Bingham county and that some of them
cross his land. He entered into an
agreement with DR.. G. A. Hoover and
l.. Clapp in 1906 to construct a
waste ditch across his land from the
company's canal and in compliance
with this agreement he constructed the
ditch. but he alleges was never paid
for his services, while at the same time
he discovered that the water from the
ditch was washing away his lands.
running about forty acres, Machold
serts that he called upon the ditch
company TO pay him damages and re-
pair the waste ditch but that this was
never done.
When the case came TO trial Machold
was defeated in his contention and he
mlsled by the officers Of the ditch com
panies and their attorneys to such an
extent that the latter even stooped to
commit perjury.
Machold s action was a suit for an
Injunction to restrain the use of the
ditch and he declares that the in
Junction was rendered against him
through fraud The complaint closes
with request for Judgment amount
ing TO $4,000.
Machold was cited to appear before
.n' Noult lof contempt 1OIIOWl0g the
filing of his sensational complaint. The
case was called before Judge Stevens,
who issued the citation and directed
the sheriff TO bring Machold before
HIM Machold was fined $50 after being
found guilty of contempt and severely
reprimapded He declared he was un-
able to pay the fine imposed by the
court and was imprisoned, and has since
been confined to the county Jail.
In his petition Just fled with the
supreme court for release MachoId de-
clares that when he was taken before
Judge Stevens on the contempt charge
he found the court and ATTORNEYS con
his case; that they denied him
witnesses and the rights Of citizen
IN the common courts. He charges in
addition that even the Judge was sworn
IN as witness against him and that
the, Judge. admitted the allegations
made by Machold were true, but said
that Machold should not have talked
about them.
Owing to the fact that two of the
supreme court justices are out of the
city and will not return until next
week the application for release from
jail made by Machold through his wife,
who made the special pilgrimage to
this city TO see the jurists of the su-
preme court in order to release her
husband, cannot be acted upon until
their return. The case has caused
great deal of interest in the southern
portion of this state.