New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-10-27
MIR. BRITTON'S CONTEMPT.
THE BROOKLYN RING OvERREACHES IT
SELF.

COMMITMENT MAS oNhoiAiNA'-D ANA'
u1rGAL ONE ON WHICH TRIBUNE EDITOR
MS s1Nr TO JArI-AN UNDER SHERIFF. URGED
ny ME- BRITroN TO FORGET WHEN II WAS LEFT
WIN HIM.
The case of w. +. G. Shanks, City Editor
Of TE TRIBUNE, who imprisoned in the jail in Ray
mouds Brooklyn for alleged contempt of Court in not
answering question put by the Grand jury as to the
authorship Of an article in THE TRIBUNE enuuea
BROOKLYN Ring Methods" camo for further arSu
ment before Judge Fancher Saturday. great crown
" spectators present and the livees interest was
manifested i'm the encounter between Henry j. Chhlou
aud Mr. Brtton the Kings County District Attorney EN
Assistant Disirct-Attorney Morris and Col A. - Jaws
both OF Brooklyn, appeared as volunteer ooln'o .O'
sEanks and aided Mr. Clinton and Mr.. knnRle WIN
valuable suggestions The proceedings PECAN WIN 'a'
reading Of the to the return of O''no"u9 a.
RlnLle who Is associated with Mr. Clinton as couhSe
for sir. shanks. The answer denies that Sherh "n.nS
holds or ever held MI shauks IN custody Oy virtue VI TIC
commitmen; attached 10 the return OF oHci'n "i'l'
The commitment under which Mr. ShanRs was held anu
which says nothing ABOUT % u"JS ~ '"0 P' -
nuemeni was read again.
MFR Rritiop PROMPT claimed the return to be evasVe'
It touqat the relatOr should he required 10 deny me
fact that tie Ulcer In charge OF him by virtue Oh
amy commitment whatever. He thought he shoOo not
avid the allegation that he in charge OF an oihoer
Cr,p the sheriff Of the County Of Kings in such an
vasiye way by stating that he is not in charge OF Nun
uader hat particular commitment
Mr. Clinon-We have followed the language OF the re-
turn substantially in making the denial, but we have
made the denial specifically than the return
We deny tlat and wish them to produce the proof
e etur,i Il. defective from beginning to end ami we
viii show H. Yonr Honor will be surprised, pretty
lon thau Won were yesterday. when the witnesses are
Yroiuc,d We deul that Mr. shauks was in charge OF
ilo officer By virtue of the commitment which the! 10"
claim 10 LOli Lin on.
Tao retuln qua answer Then read again to show
low strictly the answer followed the allegations Of the
t,Iurn denying them specifically Mr. Britton said nc
noticed one suecfo defect in this traverse There was
no denial any where that tho paper produced DIV the
sheriff OF KiuQs County is commi ment Of the over
and Terniusr of Kings County. The traverse simply
SO cue toa or law, and was in it' nature dem II
r,r aud nothing else and IN this form it could not be
sod.
M Ciinton--so far from its being matter Of law we
lave denied .c that he ever held undel thaI
lpcr al a and luiorm the counsel that We wish to 20
10 trial on IBIS question Of fact Whether that commit
Ieut is % forgery OF not it is not necessary to state IN
our return We want to show whether that commit
ent was delivered after the hour that he was put in
custody.
Judge Faacher allowed the traverse in its present
ff and Mr. Britton at once renewed his motion that
t urccedns be disn and the rcator be remanded
,,I'. 81 ri tb urevious day First page So Third
Revised Statutes ATTN edition. section 81 page to3 tLllu
,itiyu which provided that a Justice OI the supreme
no rrefIs Cont IN session in the county which
g., ssel moved further upon the section or the 1e-
siscd Statute, Gflh edition. on page 1900 ana I'D passing
mentioned rAc law Of 1913 which had been Twice re-
turna5c to the Court Of oyer and Termuer when IN
tossio1 also section H. page y05 "1cn m.ne 'ls con
Ir (lmtOu-It DOESN'T become criminal until DC Is III
Mr. Brliton-Commitment for contempt in open court
asa criminal proceeding. move also upon Tue ground
MAJ N isre prisoner Is brought from county on
wit OF la'e1s corpus qa tesHeanann he shall be re-
Iuluded 10 tne county Jail iron which he was taken.
Mr ClintoI-Iaese are preliminary matters, %nlf4
loT Honor has decided on each 1icessiye d'y a feo
do deem 10 necessary To argue tDem now 30 Iae'
appears before you IOr every iact III e re-
turn denied n regard 10 the habsas corpus ad tes-
section OF tnc statute alone Whch defines the duty
isrenuiorr allowing Of discretion whatever. It's
Inc Third Revised Statutes, .Eh edition. page so, sec
T6s parry 5re1aht before any tb re'uru Of
M fe M i9s ts7 csi lien 5 ana nsy be allowed to show
sr ha' m inpoHTeo. OF detention b. % sls Hs eau
rte s .i .. e-,r .1c, co cr os,er sb.il MO.
have r'.'aee ll gsJops on proof as NAV be pro
iu-da support Of .el imprisonment OF disnuoa or ,e.as the
anf dispose Of such I.t o. le j'e OF e case nay require
Mr clinton followed up ms quotation ny sl1'inS spe-
tbd tue only question before he Sot va 'S 10 tno
ll authority Ir restraining MI shanAs OF lls hDerly
nut there without tie knowledge Of the Sheriff and that
b. made TIE return upon the ihea that tue genuine com
tnds another commitment here and az public officer
of the Court he is here 10 yndicate his dignity against
the liberty which has been taken by the District
Attorney. j. th- commitment Is admissible they must
yroye DE was held under It,"
Mr. Brtou sid tnat this was of the most extraor
n8I3 proceedings he had ever seen lu court OF JUS
tree. The question was whether the two documents
before the Court old did prove Themselves. He
claimed that they do and that the imputaons OF the
Judge Fancher thought as toe papers were under The
-ca Oi tie Court they were admissible. The question
was whether the relator custody under that COM
Iuitmeut and OF that some proof should be giysn
Mr. Clinton then said that this was not the habeas
corpus described in proceedings at all that II
rot addressed the sheriff OF Kings County bat TO the
keeper of the Raymond-st. Jail. Judge Fancher con
fua5u ~ sioi Dr't 16t he disposed Of afterTard
Mr. mn
labeas corpus the ground that II was incomp!etei
fle commitment referred 10 annexed not
ba Manor was admitted and Mr.. Cnton's objections
were noted. Another objection was that il renauded
blr shanks 10 place which in law does not exist IL
WIS also part OF the record ard counsel had right
IN withhold a part OF that record Mr. Brtton wished
~ know they would consider the first document rs
commitment al all, but Mr. CLINTON reused 10 aOW the
record 10 be again changed,
TESTIMONY or THE SHERIFF
Mr Clinton demanded that the District-Attorney
should call the Sheriff Of Kings County and upon
ceiyiug refusal summoned the witness himself. The
testimony vas follows:
Mr. ClintOn-Wnl YOU he kind enough TO look al the
paper now handed you, which is the commitment on
which allegc that Mr.. Shanks was placed in your
custody oct. q, 1871
MIR Brtton objected TO the testimony wholly i'm
material The question in controversy was when the
sheriff received the second paper
Kings County Al am, SIR since the LIST OF January
q. You have looked at tnat paper; please state
whether OF not that was the paper you on winch
Mr.. Shanks was committed TO your custody on Oct r.
1894 mr. BrittOn objected TO the question as emb0dt
iug conclusion OF law instead OF fact, and as being IN
material 10 the case at all The question wac admitted
a. think 81 is, Sir.
Q, state whether not you ever received any other
paper on which yOu restrained him OF his hDertyf lOo
tccuon being made, Mr. Clinton waived 1t for moment
and asked this question iustead VIII you look at that
O. Mhen dAd you make that returnf A Aoout9
O'Clock on the morning Of Oct. a.
q. When you signed that was any commitment at
tached 70 IT y A lhefe was none whatever.