The Colfax chronicle. [volume] (Colfax, Grant Parish, La.) 1877-1981, 1916-09-09
Judge Dawkins
Replies to Senator
Harper'S Attack
ADVERTISEMENT

huston, La, sept. z, 1910.
Editor Collar Chronicle:
There appeared in the Dodson Times
under date of September LIST an article
under the signature of Senator S. j.
Harper, of Winfield. praising Judge
Roberts, and rejecting on me. The
author of this article starts out by say
ing: "For over ten years Judge Rob-
erts has been one of the foremost leg
islators of this State" | admit that
Judge Roberts has been legislator of
this State for the past ten years, but
it will take more than the assertion of
the Senator to prove that he has been
one of the foremost.
The fact that he has spent so much
of his time in recent years in the Leg
islature, coupled with the further fact
that he has never been Judge of any
Court prior to the time that he was ap
pointed to the Court of Appeal by Gov
ernor Hall, is sufficient evidence to
convince the average individual that
Judge Roberts is not qualified either
by study or training to hold that i'm
portant place and pass judgment on
the acts of District Judges, many of
whom have spent years in the study of
law and upon the bench.
Senator Harper refers to two deci-
sions which were rendered by me while
Judge. by which he attempts to show
Mr.. Roberts superiority to me in legal
learning and to further show that my
inclination as Judge has been towards
corporations instead of towards indi-
viduals.
The first case to which he refers is
that of a negro named Davenport. who
brought suit through his attorney,
Judge Roberts, in my court to recover
asmages for injuries done to him on
S.ead of the Dubach Lumber
MIS-. Il. us--lssed the demand of
dria, came up FrSiSSsnrr:the evidence
convinced me that he was drunk on CO.
caine and was responsible for his own
injury. | believe in fairness, even to
corporations and that they. like other
litigants, should not be charged with
injuries for which they are not re-
sponsible. The Supreme Court revers-
ed this case, but it never came again
to the court. Why, | do not know.
Perhaps Senator Harper can say.
The other case referred to was the
case of Carter VS.. Dubach Lumber Co.
for damages done him in the mill. In
this case gave judgment in favor of
Carter for $500 90. ] saw the man,
examined his wounds, and reached the
conclusion that s250O0 90 would do JUS
tice between him and the lumber COM
pany. The Supreme Court did not have
the opportunity of seeing and examin-
ing the mans wounds as / did, but
they increased the damages to $4,000. 90.
Both courts held that the plaintiff was
entitled to damages, and it was not
matter Of reversal of my court, but
simply the difference as to what the
Supreme Court and myself considered
just compensation in the matter.
The Senator's article gives me the
first information that Judge Roberts
was an attorney for the plaintiff in the
last case mentioned. The records show
that Messrs Clayton & Hawthorn were
the attorneys for Carter. This can be
seen at page 239 in the 1i3 La. report.
The obvious purpose of the Senator
in referring to these decisions is to
make the public believe that have ia
vored corporations in preference to in
dividuals in suits before my court. If
he will take the pains to examine the