The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1917-03-17
SATURDAY EVENING LETTER
10y Justice J, {, Robinsen.)


During the past two weeks we have
heard arguments In only two or three
cases. Some judges have been on the
sick list, some absent, two, three OF
five days. The Judges have not yet
adopted my A. b. C. rules, or any good
working system. Some cases that were
argued early in January have not yet
been decided, and know Of no good
reason why competent Judges should
not decide every case within week
after 1t Is argued.
Next week we have twelve cases
set for argument, and in my hours OF
idleness ! have been looking over the
records to know how each case should
be decided. It is one thirg to hear the
arguments In case and another thing
to get down to business and decide It,
In law, as In any other business. when
a person defies and pushes the work
IL becomes a pleasure: when he lets
the work push him. it becomes a drag
In the famous Youmans care l com
mend you to read my opinion and to
note well that the appeal was filed
Sept. Fl. 1915. And according to the
rules and practice of the court this
appeal could not have been put on
the court calendar for trial before
January, 1917. The parties had until
January to prepare and file the briefs,
and manifestly they needed all that
time. as the record covers $50 pages
and cost $500. Then, after the filing
of briefs. they were entitled to fair
notice OF time to appear and argue the
case. but without anv briefs, or any
oral argument, and in the absence OF
counsel. the case was rushed over a
%. the last day Of the hold-over
judges. In all my practice of over two
score years, it is the first time ever
knew or heard Of such rush proce-
dure. ,.s=s
Robinson, ]. (Dissenting): In the
Grant Youmans case a motion to re-
consider and grant a new trial is de-
MED. and do most strenuously dis
sent. The decision is a lengthy write
up by two judges of an inferior court
and Is contrary to the deliberate judy
ment of a majority Of our justices
Hence, 1t is not the judgment Of this
court, but while it stands it will stand
as a reproach to this court. Hence, 1t
will still be the duty of this court, on
Its own motion, or on any proper mo-
ton, to reconsider the case and to or
der a new trial.
The case IL a travesty on the ad-
ministration Of justice. 1t Is regular
Captain Dreyfus case. The record COW
St % SNCI PdSCS anu tASA =
Is error on every page. The defend
ants have. as 1t were, moved heaven
and earth to prevent a fair trial or any
trial, and that alone shows they have
reason to fear the result of a fair
trial.
At Minot the plaintiff was a banker
He and his wife practically owned and
controlled a bank of large resources,
though of questionable solvency. a
H. n 1T.
made bigS money. The bank examiner,
upon the plaintiff and forcefully closed
the bank, taking all its property and
the property of the plaintiff and his
wife, and bonus Of $4,000. Youmans
testifies:
"The bank examiner came to me
with bunch of papers in his hand.
He placed me in a chair and told me
to sit down there. He took hold of the
chair and said, Sit down there @.
aminer objected to certain mortgages,
to $4,000, and gave YOU
mans a day to replace the loans with
cash. This Youmans prepared to do.
Then the examiner put up the figure
to $4,000, Youmans said: my God!
You don't mean that" The answer
was: THAT is the amount you will
have to put , up to save the bank"
Then sat down into a chair and be-
came partly unconscious. It put me. to
sleep practically" The whole proce-
character. The examiner and his
bunch forced Youmans to turn over to
them the bank and all it's books and
his stock in the bank, with bonus of
$4,000. This was done by duress and
threats and by taking an unfair ad-
of another's necessities and
contrary to the plain words
Of the tsate. The bulldozing proce-
dure had no authority In law. 1t mat
ters not whether Youmans was a good
man or a bad man, or whether his
bank was solvent or insolvent; there
was no law to warrant the procedure
In taking charge OF the bank the ex-
aminer was acting under statutory
power and he was bound to keep
strictly within the limits Of his power
and to use 1t humaneIy and not OPP
This he did not do,
The record is a mass Of error. 1t
shows that from the beginning to the
end Of the case the rulings of the
trial court were in the main decidedly
against the plaintiff. Five hundred
times the court ruled enormously to
strike out testimony Of the plaintiff
as not responsive or as voluntary
just as though the witness
were not sworn to tell the whole truth
and not merely to answer such ques-
tions as counsel might put to him.
Youmans testifles: THE whole bunch,
the examiner and others, refused to
let me have the assets Of the bank or
D list of them. They absolutely refused
to let me have the access to the stuff.
They had gobbled 1t and they never
let me put my hands or my eyes on 1t
after that" (PurcelD: II move to
strike out the answer as not respons-
i've and as voluntary statement and