Show defendants RIGHTS IGNORED IT Is not long since the directed attention to doings we esteem most unwarrantable and fusul ln sultina ting on the part of 17 S commissioner mckay dedoes he does not appear tobe to be guld guided edby by any principle in manipulating his bis court As we understand it he be cannot well be guided by knowledge tor for if there be one particular more than another in which he be shines with special lustre it is in the absence of information to call him a modern would be a reflection in our opinion upon the memory of that notorious character for lie be at least is credited with the possession of some knowledge of law while it may be asked whether or not all the acquisition in that line attained by the official now under consideration was or was not derived from the sweep ings of judge sutherlands herlands Sut office when he acted as charwoman for that gentleman in all but the matter of sex commissioner kickay do doggedly gedly persists in cases of af cohabitation in compelling legal wives to ceif testify a against g ains their husbands 8 bands without th the e att batters lat e rs cu consent and against the will of the witness in matters of confidential communication the protests bro tests of counsel for the defense are treated with contempt and have been met by bt insult from him not only is s th this Is the ca sebut he asserts that judge zane has not held that legal wives can norbe compelled to testify in relation to any confidential communication ni between herself and her husband he thus shows either a willing ignorance of what has been held in iii the district court or he be insists in contemptuously disregard disregarding lu the rules adopted in in the court of which his is but an arm so to speak or an auxiliary this at point was brought squarely before re judge ge zane in the case against james eardley in which objection was IF raised to testimony being given by mrs zur viah eardley eardle the th T e legal I 1 e gal wife of the defendant ave ve here make an extract from the count account of that particular proceeding in the case referred to the defense offered the objection that the witness herself declined to testify against her husband mr rawlins stated that he desired to argue the case the court said the question had been discussed on a former occasion and would allow the witness to answer any question except as to confidential communications made by the defendant in the face of this commissioner mckay iterates and reiterates iterates re that judge zane holds that a wife is a competent witness in all U matters in this class im s of cases his hi course is reprehensible t hen elis sible ib I 1 e in the extreme as by his ar bitar baitary daod ancl tyrannical method becom he compels w witnesses it tue ases to supply ay in a public capacity improper testimony against a certain class of defendants I 1 whose rights are not only ignored but trampled under the hoof of an asinine official it as if a protest was all that can be offered as a remedy for such wrongs seeing that they go on tined |