Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1876-08-02
INVESTIGATING Judge Humphrey.
THE TESTIMONY TO-DAY.

The TESTIMONY TODAY.
The special House committee investi yat-
Ing the charges against Judge ID. G. Hum
phreys, OF the District bench, continued
ing.
II. X. Elliott was sworn and testified in re-
spect TO the matters OF fact involved In tue
specifications against Judge Humphreys,
except In the lst and sth specifications he
ton In respect to his conduct upon the bench
enabled him to state that Humphreys was
fnssy and quite discorteous to members OF
the bar. Never observed IL with jurors and
officers OF the court. His manner in deli yer.
ing an opinion is to q large extent expressed
by the first specification, which charges that
he is ignorant Of law and incapable Of logi-
cal reasoning. His written opinions reai
well, are well expressed and sound; his oral
opinions are quite the reverse. Daring the
last term OF the Circuit Court noticed an in
creased irritability OF the judge in the after
noon sessions; know nothing OF his being
intoxicated upon the bench. Witness said
that he was present when Humphreys deliv-
cred the chsrge TO the jury in the case of
Beall VS.. the Baltimore and OHIO railroat
witness failed 10 comprehend what the
Judge was driving at, but supposed the jury
understood. Do not believe that Judge
Humphreys Is q dishonest man.
r. a. Lambert testified that be had little or
no knowledge of majority OF the charges
preferred against Judge HUMPHREYS. His
observations of his conduct on the bench,
however, were sufficient to satisfy his mind
that he was untitled for his seat upon the
bench. Witness generally avoided trying
cases before him by having them continuei
until the next term.
huge7le CdriGsi testified that he had seen
Judge Humphreys at times when mis- pecu-
liarities were so intensified that he could at
ttibute the same to no other cause Than to
indulgencein liquor; have seen him at I'll mes
drink on the bench; thinks Humphreys is
unnt for judge, and to considerable ex-
tent incapable OF logical reasoning. Have
known him TO order counsel In rude way
70 take his seat; have known him to utter
fere with the management of cases 10 his
court On one occasion witness was trying
q case before Humphreys, he attempts 70
prove very material point; opposite cum
sci ooje cted, and Humphreys refused to even
allow witness to state what he wanted to
prove. Witness abandoned the case, aud
had to go to court of equity to get the
rights denied him by Humphreys. To snow
read charge 10 the jury made BY him I'm a
usury case.
Wna A. Cook testified that some of the
too strongly stated; he did not think he was
grossly Ignorant of law, he thought he had
an ordinary knowledge OF law; 1t is too
tally for judge; viewed as a Judge OF the
first order ne is inca pable; he is largely un-
tilt ID for ajudge, but will compare well with
one or two Others on the bench. Much OF
what Humphreys says cannot be comDre-
hended by jury. He starts out with good
conception OF what he means to say, but be-
fore he gets half through his mental vision
becomes obscured, and his utterances ara
devoid OF common sense; have never seen
him intoxicated On the bench; have seen him
Supplied with liquor, which was probably
the result of his going out with other JUICES
during recess. There is nothing however
peculiar In this.
The Chairman.-You say IT is not peculiar
By what standard do you judge the pscu-
liarity?
A. am making direct relative com pari-
son with another judge ou the bench, who /
think is more frequently under the influence
of liquor than Judge Humphreys. Judge
Humphreys has borrowed money from ms,
and think has little OF mine now. Wit
ness said he was An attorney In the case of
b al versus the Baltimore and Ohio railroad,
and when the Charge to the jury was III ade
in that case both counsel for the plaintiff
and defendant noted an exception to the
charge, neither kno wing whether II was for
or against him.
C. e. 6da0nston testified that he did not
consider the Judge incapable Of logical rsa-
soning, but his rulings at times are so pecu
liar that jury nor a1y one else can tell what
he means.
j. Garter MdrbuTy testified that he had lost
case by Judge Humphreys entering jadg-
ment by default while he (MarbIry) was
preparing an AFFIDAVIT 10 the marshai's of
nee. He refused to set his judgment aside,
even after Marbury had informed hi N that
he had been at the court room all day av ait
ing trial, and had just stepped out to prepare
paper in the case, the rules of the court not
allowing papers to be drawn up Ia open
cOCFr.