The Judge Who Was Drunk on the Bench and Threatened to Fill a Man with Lead

OLYMPIA, March 12.—Special. In their report on the investigation of the charges against Judge W. W. Langhorne, of Chehalis, Representative Halteman and Goddard say:

“As to the matters averred in specification No. 1 of the first charge, wherein Judge Langhorne is accused of sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the amended complaint without having read the same or having heard the same read or its contents stated, and without hearing argument thereon, your committee finds that such accusation is sustained by the evidence.

“As to the matters averred in specification No. 4 of the first charge, in reference to the appointment of receiver and attorneys for the Tower Lumber Company, we, your committee, find the evidence to be conflicting, with the preponderance in favor of the matters alleged.

“We find as to the allegation set forth in specification No. 5 of the first charge, wherein Judge Langhorne is accused of intentionally, and without cause, for the purpose of breaking up the business of certain lawyers therein mentioned, and of publicly threatening in the communities wherein they reside for the purpose of so breaking up the business of said lawyers, of arbitrarily and publicly stating that it was his intention to disbar said attorneys from practicing their profession in his courts, that said charges are sustained by the evidence.

“Your committee finds that the charge made in specification No. 2 of the second charge, wherein said Langhorne is accused of threatening to kill Edward F. Hunter at the St. Helens hotel in the city of Chehalis, Wash., and with such intention proceeded thence armed with a deadly weapon, to be substantiated by the testimony produced upon our investigation.

“As to the matters averred in specification No. 3 of the second charge, wherein said Langhorne is charged with the exhibiting of a revolver pistol, and stating that he was going to fill Edward F. Hunter with lead, we find that the matters therein alleged are true.

“Your committee finds that the charges of intoxication while on, as well as off the bench, of the said W. W. Langhorne, judge, as set out in specification No. 5 of the second charge, are true and have been established before your committee by the great weight of testimony.

“As to the matters averred in specification No. 7 of the second charge, in reference to the interference with the administration of the business of the court of Lewis county and selection of deputies to be appointed, we find said charges to be established by the preponderance of the evidence.

“As to the matters charged in specification No. 7 of the fifth charge, wherein it is alleged that said Langhorne promised the appointment of a receivership in a valuable estate now in litigation in the county of Lewis, in consideration of such appointment the applicant to render his assistance to said Langhorne in a certain proposed impeachment case, then pending, and compensation thereof to suit proposed appointee and his attorney, we find the above charge to be true.

“As to the matters charged in specification No. 2 of the last charge, that on account of the refusal of complainant to form a copartnership with his son Maurice A. Langhorne, that the said W. W. Langhorne, as judge and as an individual, has persecuted said complainant both in and out of court, we, your committee, find that the evidence, while conflicting as to the above charge, is substantiated and proven to be true by testimony of witnesses in specification No. 3 of said last charge.

“As to the matters charged in specification No. 3 of the last charge, that on account of the refusal of certain attorneys in Lewis and Pacific counties to form copartnership with the said son of the said Langhorne, that such refusals have been followed up by judicial and private persecutions from and by said W. W. Langhorne toward the above mentioned attorneys, we, your committee, find to be true.

“Your committee finds as to specification No. 4 of the last charge, wherein said Langhorne is accused of examining and cross-examining witnesses in cases tried by him as presiding judge, and before a jury, and of generally usurping the province of the attorneys, and of depriving them of the right of intelligently performing the duties and obligations which exist between attorneys and clients, and that said judge imposes many fines for contempt upon members of the bar during the trial of cases before juries, in which he is the presiding judge, and afterward in private remitting such fines, would respectfully report that from the great bulk of the testimony adduced before them at the hearings, they find all the said allegations are proven by convincing and satisfying testimony.”