New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1877-07-31
TINEFOR DOVAHUE 70 ANSWER.

Bernard j. Donahuc, the leader OF the strk-
in- brikcmcn iovuci willie. va b'for' Jnlge Dono
haze n sprcne Court Chambers, yesterday. on the war
rant for his arrest - 20 contempt oi Court lie ma
found coun-cry-judge Curtis, formerly OF the Marine
Cur. and Roger g. Pryor Wncn the mat,er was ,llcd
uu ,Ir Pryor sail hc only s, been employed, and had
NOT had time 10 deliberate and wise up)n the course to
be pursued judge Doa7huc said that was clearly prop
er and Ire wa nc.nel 20 grant the time.
Sir L.r,..ur Tor Receiver Jcwet cticl attention Ia
te fac, that tIs WAS u)t mere violation oi an ORDER
but q criminal eon;cmp: n interfering WITH the officer o.
the Court. ard the oniy question ne submitted WAS
vlr:. er the prisoner would admit or deny his guilt.
Nj Pryor said that he lj mot that the prisoner
called Oh as yet % 'lo either
JlI-e Dononue 5lid: NO, Won may take time 10 con
silt Il very serious charge gair.t ire rrsoner and
feel disposed to give him a prop time TO present his
ease"
Mr. Pryor then sail there was one question he pre-
pared 10 argue 81 oncaheiaer the afiaYits which
the warrant u attachment granted were sufficient to
u.ain it, llr Laroc1e called attention 10 the sub
seoucnt aliayit tie substance OF which published
iu yes, .rlay'4 TRIBUNE.
5ir Pryor claimed that the warrant being statutory
,....i,as anus. stand ar fall aiiItyits winch
fl as granted. Those Ili lavits charged combination
or conspiracy 10 30 certain acts \ conspiracy to Go
acts y~ not a contempt Cslr c1Atenuts nad been
carefully and wis ~ defined by statute IL wds alleged
at ~. prisoner nd consGr'd % 40 those aes. bat
l1-e act, were an stated IN the a.t r.I:ye "cIthr.
t tnr alc.-i coaspratoIs storIcd trains. o. rfc
N,ut,d them .T,u ng, cor" rN c.lDd them from
l.. rack or" -om 90 ,r thin-. ln case N. dy
positive az ALLEGED ANA the statute defining con
U.pt- required an ae-. g. eur 90, tlat U.lr UtLF
aih ivIf. supplied Ii- deg ct other 0l tine i-
l...i Etriacr.. tAc OF Domaine the variant de-
rci,..d solely on The petition III. ett, ula. ill.,
form ami belief nIt.Dut stating tDr eT0it~ 90 n-
mel Aside rom tr3t tNc contempt, 81 ANY. Uss ths
l.tuu uf .n order auu ID nowhere arptafed lLuf j.
uic .s eyer served WiiI tuc order WHICH hr WIS
cuacd % violating ~ al Ie-rec'r the aiiiatits
vol-h Abe warrant granted Iiucd 70 comply VII.
.ue -tatlfr 20, a.ains, D uIhCc. Tbs was criminal
urrcrr,nE auG every rrcsunFtiO W;, ii DIS ftyOr.
Judge bJuoniic r.lcd taat tni- vas NOT ct proceeding
foG violating order, tnt ior .u"frfihS Win tuurt
officer ia ir di-calr-r al lis duty Much therefore cd
sir Pry0r's Argument aside from ar Question. Tie
u.u.urd atIdtNlis sufficiently t~iaalf-s 81 HAT tEc
prisoner az crrt.ip cousirtt'rs Wro di acts
n4.ins ih- effect mentioned. dr Gcrdsd tnls ths
Original l.iidyitS aI'ue t!u-h BEE n-d"itd tIc LATER
aiii Vif- before M and iLr prisoner Mu,t either
admit tAc acts or decay item.
lar counsel for tlr anV waived 81" We. nCduu 20
tl denial aud Hr. curtis put in TO- NAL denial ~ Tie
c1nc,Ant Aficra Httlr ascl..uu 4 vas agreed t..It
fr formal iu crIO- tories io tIc r-UEcr D>
of contempt sHoud Doe pat % vHu tw0 days, dat nr
-4ouid then Ten ga! 20 AIS" cr tr, lhd tHal thc
arl'ent oI these answers, aid sucD afdtv cinr.
side u-W bring il, should Dee deferred O." ESQ weeks
to-day, DJutua me tA"iil" rcnAluIh- IN Ludlow
street jail
question whether tte prisoner should br admitted go
blil was briefly discussed. tir. NIuirroD, Tor t Re
eeScr, saying that Le ha% no Dirct0n % JllH. DJa
ryeI Jr BAL. Dlt insisting aaf inc las gave toe
Judge no sucD power Judge DJuDhur said WJuid
reserve the Question: and permit titJcr side 90 submit
suggestions.