The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1917-03-17

absolutely false" THE word false is
Withdrawn and the answer stricken
out" And so the trial continued for
ten days, with error upon error, nauk-
ing q record OF over nine hundred
pages. The trial should have been con-
cluded in two days, with a record of
not more than two hundred pages. The
testimony should have been limited to
the condition OF the bank when 1t was
taken over; the property taken by tie
defendants; tho manner OF taking 1t
and disposing OF it; and the value OF
the property and the stock and the
assets. And on these points evidence
was persistently offered and as per-
sistently objected to and excluded
And for such persistence the plaintiff
was repeatedly threatened with con-
tempt. a"
There was nothing to warrant the
closing and the wrecking of the bank
in the way ii was done. Hence, all
who took an active part in the wreck
ing We're tort feasors. This includes
only those who were present. aiding
or abetting or profiting by the wreck
ing. There was no sense or reason
for making any other person a party
to the action.
The plaintiff sued for $4,000 dam
ages. The case was tried before Judge
kneeshaw, who directed a verdict for
the defendants. On the trial the plain
tiff was represented by an attorney
who knew, more Of socialism than OF
law and practice. He was completely
outReneralled by four shrewd old-time
lawyers who opposed him. We call
them the Big Four. In the story Of Don
Quixote we read how his squire.
Sancho Panza. was tossed up in a
blanket by some humorous rascals.
And so it was on the trial Of this case.
The Big Four restrained their laughter
while they dealt with our Socialist
friend as II he were a second Sancho
PanZa. OF course. in way. 1t was all
very humorous, but 1t was trifiing with
the due administration of Justice, and
for that the big counsel do we'll deserve
a severe rebuke. To every question
there was an objection by one. two,
three or more Of the big counsel. and
the ruling was nearly always against
the plaintiff. To the simple question:
How long have you been in the bank
ing business?" there was an objection
covering q page and a half.
To cap the climax. the court direct
ed verdict in favor Of the defend
ants. An appeal to this court was filed
on Sept. Fl, 1915, and in some way 1t
was rushed and advanced over Q
hundred pending appeals. and contrary
to the rules Of the court and the uni
form practice. never heard Of any,
thing like it. And without waiting for
the filing of briefs. or the hearing Of
oral arguments, on Dec. %. 1915, a
final decision was given against YOU
mans. To saw the least. 1t was given
by a court of very questionable juris.
diction. Three of the judges were
holding over after their term of office
had expired and after their successors
had been duly elected and qualified
and demanded the office. The holding
over judges improvised court of four
district judges to sanction their hold
ing, and this they attempted to do
contrary to mandate OF the supreme
court signed by the three newly elect
ed and qualified supreme court judges.
That was on Dec. 5. and long prior
to the decision Of the hold-over judges.
Now. under the constitution, every
supreme court Judge has been elected
to hold office for term of years, COM
mencing on the first Monday of
December after his election. To the
several judges there have been issued,
pursuant to law. in all, twenty certih-
Gates of election. signed by the COVER
nor. the secretary Of state and mem
Der of the board of canVassers, and
given under the great seal of the state.
Each certificate shows that the person
therein named was elected to the office
for a stated term Of years, commence
ing on the first Monday of December
after his election. OF course, We can
not think that the twenty great seals
and sixty official signatures were given
to a falsehood. or that every judge
was so simple as to accept his certlt1-
cate with a false statement.
l concede that on Dec. %, 1915, the
hold -oVer judges were de facto judges,
in just the same sense as they would
be were they holding over until the
present time.
Early in January. 1917. motion was
made to this court to reconsider the
case and to grant a new trial. AS
Judges Grace and Birdzell declined to
sit on the motion. two district judges
were invited to take their place.
When the motion was argued the big
counsel for the defendant talked OF re
facto courts and judges and declined
to say a word on the merits OF the
case, One of the district judges fol-
lowed in the same line and wrote an
facto courts. The decision or write
UP comes in it's usual course after a
lapse of two months. which Is very
different from the way in which the
case was rushed and decided without
any brief or argument in Decem-
Der.
am entirely clear the ruling is
radically wrong and 1t Is contrary 70
the avowed and deliberate judgment
of three of the supreme court judges.
ON another motion. 1t is more than
possible that the judges OF this court
NAV reconsider and decide the case on
its merits. Indeed. it is their bounden
duty to do 1t on their own motion, II
is a debt of Justice and sooner or later
- ]. e. Robinson,
-Iu0E@.