Court Opinion

ID: 9866436
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 11:45:47.591411+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:31.539367
License: Public Domain

*101Fitzgerald, J.,
did not sit in the hearing of this case or participate in the opinion. On the 10th of December, 1900, a motion was made before him, while he was judge of the Third District, to continue said case until after the next flood season, to wit, June, 1901, in order that defendants might see whether or not the water in controversy would run to certain places in dispute. The granting of said motion would have continued the case over two regular terms of court, to wit, the December term, 1900, and the March term, 1901, and brought the trial not earlier than the Juljr term, 1901. This motion was denied, and the case was set for trial on the 21st of January, 1901, to which ruling exception was entered. At the trial of the ease the said motion was renewed, or a similar motion made, and denied by Judge Fitzgerald’s successor on the district bench; to which ruling also exception was entered. These exceptions — both those as to the ruling made by Judge Fitzgerald before the trial and as to those made by his successor during the trial — were involved in the appeal herein, and, in consequence thereof, Fitzgerald, J., did not participate in any of the proceedings on the appeal to this court; for, of course, neither he nor others couid foresee that the case on the appeal here would go off on other questions than the said exceptions, and that those exceptions would not be passed upon, or not need to be passed upon, on the appeal.