New-York tribune., 1872-02-28
JUDICIAL TYRANNY.
uDGE BARNARD's REvENGE-HE IMPRTs0NS
LAWYER FOR A DIsREsPECTFUL REMAEk'

JUDGE BARNARD's REYENGE-iIE lMPRiSONS
LAWYER FOR A DIsREsPECTFUL REMAEK.
Judge Barnard has again outraged the feel
ngs of the more respectable portion of the legal proies
SION I'm order crafty his petty malice by hnng ana
imprsonine a lawyer who had dared TO speak his mnd
relative to certain rulings of the Judge The victim In
this instance IA Granville S. Z. Stlman OF NO l7O
broadway, a Wcll-mOwn and reputable member OF the
bar reporter Of THE TRIBUNE called last evening at
Iudlow-st Jail upon Mr. stillmaD, who declared that
the action OF Judge Barnard was prompted ny lIieehg
toward hlm Oh account OF previous misunder.
standings between them, and was not due alone
to the proceedings OF yesterday Some time ago Mr.
stilman came into possession OF several promissory
notes given by John W. Browning, an Inspector under
James NJ. MacgregOr in the Department OF BuildhsS'
Suits we're begun against Mr. Browning by Slnan, ana
judgments obtained. An examination showed that
Browning had received pay from the city since Oco-
Der last and there was owing him nearly $780, The udg
ments against him amounted TO s295. Mr. Stilnan made
out an order the usual form directing the Controller
TO pay much of the salary OF Mr. Browning as would
satisfy the Judgments and requested Judge Barnard 10
sign It, the order with the documents certifying TO the
correctness Of the claim being placed on the desk In
front OF him.
After transactlng some other business, and making
several orders relative other matters Judge Barnard
picked up Mr.. stillmans papers, examined them, and
then threw them aside apparently with no intention q
complying with Mr. Smans request I1e iattet asssa ~
S1sd SI&sSd IN n @ RRegpe Mr @aG called H
attention to the fact tha the Paels nS m1e Tssas
!"s] n'.$ ss;s .a q i ~ Y K.
turo passed in 1866, exempted salaries for he
space OF 60 days presiding The date OF an SSRsa SRRa
that the act did not apply in this case az there Were
nearly five months salary owing the defepdant judge
Barnard said that the salary might have been hypoth.
ecaed and declined to grant the order Iritated ny
the action of the Judge, and believing tnat was
prOmpted solely by ilfeelng toward him, MT otlnan
said that this circumstance II & d ~ pTrat1 ~
snnorcny believing that this referred 10 the
ton into judicial actions OF bl9seI anu Juuge NeI
dozo replied that he Would & me i; tnt s,So hi
from his pocket, and advancing toward the
clerk Of the Court 70 pay yne 'ni days sn5 imprsO
,nepf MT stlnan reminded the Judge that this order
nf imprisonment was in the original order Judge
Barnard replied that il was, ana refused 10 a9ccP.
exclamation OF Mr.. Stlman that ne meant 10
toward the Court. He given INTO tDe CUSTODY VI n
ofcrr and AT once conducted to Ludow-st Jail During
the trial of the case Edward stokes against Jant
Fisk ir 10 determine the ownership Qi hn OH Icuc!J 20 20
proolyn which both claimed, Dir. Stllmah was one W,
fbe copseI emplOyed by Stokes, and during tho tIa
criticised very sharply the rulings OF Judge baiu III
some other cases he has also expresseu hlnsell ~
freely, and not long ago he was elec.eu Jndge
Bar Association All these things have emntered 1uuBo
Barnard and as Mr. Stillman 1rnly Dene'rh NV "N
count for this piece Of tyranny toward hln ihe iVno
ing is the order Of commitment; , -, Fat, i,n a,
riered-TbA G. s. T. Stlmsn be eomlnielo ne sT a.
the Cty aud County for enc day aod pay hn u
gross and Insulting language In open Court teiasns 70 o
Sap iussed upon order that improper iH h
claimed that was ross s&a 5 at oat, f SsSYe
r 10 d for the above menOpei time the sid Slnan of s"eD
Aforesaid period Of time until the payment Of the hne H. t
order and says the account OF the transaction gwen
above IL the true one