Show JUDGE BAKEN REPLIES lie gihei III for alln in the cane ko furred to I 1 nt XV eek EDS RECORD noticing tho criticism crit icim in 5 our last issue on the judgment iven b me in the case of the people of utah vs wm machugh Man hugh as being a to the and as ho ads a surprise to e ery one who listened to the evidence 13 ot much importance to the pubic but not moie so than to iselt men of erml would deign tore ply but not chiming adv of the qualifications ficat ions that would entitle me to the position I 1 now hold will only the case more fully first the antic for hs good opinion and flie good opinion of those w horn ho says are competent judges second having tried over cases since my elec tion and having escaped many criticisms no doubt I 1 can but acel thankful that hive done so well from the small of knowledge and experience peri ence I 1 possess ichird from the self constituted critic without going into the matter in controversy further th in the evidence ho admits that it is just possible that the defendant did on this particular occasion neglect to supply the needed entertainment tl e statute provides ahat was whit the suit was bi ought tor but in addition to what his been admitted there was a letter admitted in evidence without objection jec tion stating there were other neglects and want of attendance of a moie nature that the statute ilo provides thit M pi and is due to every guest in a house of this kind everywhere ery where 0 o far as my knowledge extend it for no otner reason than self presentation pres and that is cleanliness of the room this letter written by i sick iad to her hustind hus bind dated 1882 stated tint she could not get water to drink ind fb it she w is dirty the baby was dirty and that other dis orderlies tending to the air of her room existed and that cordei ed her to et abnot her boarding when at the time she wis confined to her bed and unable to be moved accompanying compa nying the letter was a telegram and submitted without object tian from machugh to mcgrath asking him to come out and tike caie of his wife that she has been sick a tecc and pay your blaid bill he did ba on the as boon as it was possible to get here and the bill receipted was also submitted in evidence without ob lection aldei warden the ast 1st alv of maich there was more neglect the hustind was out on and from this evidence by the prosecution I 1 based my judgment 1 rave no doubt the antic baad his evidence introduced by the defendant it would eem unreasonable to believe thit the three eminent attorneys spoken of would mike out a Lomp hint contrary to the and induce a poor like Winn amuck to cerhit to when he could have amplo ed taj critic aiho would have told him that ho had no else and would hit aad the county an s counsel fees chew liter he was taken sick ind quartered at the park city hotel requiring i nurse or extra attendance not scheduled etc and was there confined to his bed not able to leave it or in any hotel who his the chamber work to do afeei the bill is paid the price agreed upon fui such services and the gust statute but besas machugh had violated violi ted BO habo simply neglected on one occasion sion to provide extra attendance heie is where ho was not plying much attention to the eviden ceas there wao no such atten dinco or expected or wa it given it WAS export ed by the guest to receive the same amount ot courtesy and attendance atten dince that was usually bestowed upon other dueh of the bouse ind no moie with out taking into consi dention thit they paid art aci week a price that no other guest paid or was chaimea he fui more states that what the policy might be etc I 1 think the bocy is what he based hia criticism upon instead of evidence he adds no judge aikens decision in this ere is not justice it is not law neither is it based upon a correct showing of the evidence this is strong language for a man toube I 1 am afraid he has nude life ho aas there is no appe il from that decision I 1 was not aware of adv chui coui ts except the court of the united states and john Tay lort bit a defendant could not appeal from but I 1 am mistaken I 1 cm come no n writer of haa an interest inte iest in the bouso and takes this method efad pel haps he wants to impress upon abo minds of the public ins ability to fill ny position that 13 now by me the criticism but such qualifications abc fi in advance of a and I 1 would recommend him foi the of park city at once but my excuse is this aiom the evidence a T understood my decision was iriven had t known abo writer api haps w decision might hive bean diffrient up to the present giroo my decisions have been given over m own and may hao been ot heis they hao been invariably the beat I 1 had hiving no wrongs to light and botho best to do justice to all I 1 leave the public to judae mv pat I 1 aim to there are some residing in park kiy who dair ind will continua to alio acts of public included when thero is a aust cause for it for the sale of good law and older even if they do ein enate frodi the remains of in ill spent lifo JP pana igich 1882 |