The Somerset herald. [volume] (Somerset, Pa.) 1870-1936, 1877-07-18
RULE ON TmOs. n. GREEyY.


The case OF the members Of the Bed
ford Bar, petitioners against Thos. III.
Greevy, 10 show cause why he should not
be dismissed from his office OF attorney, was
called for hearing at the adjourned court
on Tuesday. This case has attracted consid.
cradle interest and quite u number of per
sons from Bedford, us well as from a dis
lance, assembled in the III room to hear
what disposition would be made vi il.
Messrs. }. ii. Lonsenecker and j. NJ. Rey-
nolds represented The petitioners for the
rule, and Messrs. X. NJ. Spcer, of Hun
tingdon, Rufus. L. Shapley, OF Philsdrl-
phia, and John Cessna, appeared for the
respondent.
Mr.. Speer presented the answer of the
respondent, Mr.. Greevy, aud asked leave
of the Court to read it, To which his Hon.
Judge Hall, replied that under the prac-
tice OF the oar ii was proper that the
court should first examine the paper to see
II IL contained such matter as was proper
10 be read and filed. The court took the
paper Tor examination and at O'Clock
when the cour met in the evening, il was
handed 10 Mr.. Speer who read il and ask
ed permission TO have it filed, to which
the court agreed with the exception OF the
er parte aiiidaviis which were ordered 10
be stricken from it as not properly a part
OF the answer, nor permissible as evidence
under the rules of court.
The answer OF Mr.. Greevy is ia sub
stance as follows:
l. That the petition on which the rule
was issued is insufficient because not veri-
ned by afiida Wit as required by the rule OF
Court.
:. That Greevy vas not at any time and
is not now professionally engaged in the
case OF Alden and Hamlin, and that he
was present in court during the trial as a
witness and a journalist, and the afidavits
OF Alden and Hamlin and of Messrs. Cess
ma, their counsel. are given in support of
their denial.
8. That the publication complained OF
was made by respondent solely as editor
and publisher OF a public newspaper, with
u malice and only tor the public good.
A. That the cour., under the constitu-
ton and laws Of tie State, in this form of
procedure. has no jurisdiction of the issue
raised by the petition andanswer. The an
swer then further adds that the foregoing
is q sufficient answer to the rule; but to
avoid being misunderstood by silence the
respondent declares that he did no. in any
way attempt to influence the action of the
jurors in the case Of Alden and Hamlin;
that in the publication complained of he
desired ITO state the facts as witnessed by
him" in the interest OF truth AMI justice,
and that If he did not do so. he invites the
petitioners to call him to the proper forum.
ajury, that all questions of fact may be
legally determined" The answer closes
with the suggestion that the petitioners
are guilty OF manifest indelicacy in requir-
ing him to appear before the Judge, in a
summary proceeding to defend 'the truth
OF a publication alleged by them to he a IL
bel on The President Judge himself" and
in asking the same Judge to heal and
determine disputed questions of fact and
motive, involving his own official conduct
and character. as well as the rights of the
people involved in The freedom OF the
press"
His Honor Judge Hall then announced
to the counsel what was involved, in his
judgment. in the proceeding before him,
stating that Mr.. Greevy was not before
him to answer for contempt. nor was the
proceeding against him as an editor and
that in consequence the liberty of the
press was in no way involved.
This then narrowed the issue to the
simple proposition as to whether there had
been a breach Of his professional flelity
as charged against Mr.. Greevy by the petit
toners.
MI. Reynolds, on behalf of the petition
ers asked permission CT the court TO call
Mr.. Keeffe, the officer who had charge of
the jury in the case of the Com. vs.. Alden
and Hamlin, to prove that % Of the coun
sci for the defendants approached him
three times during the night while he had
the jury in charge and desired to know
how they stood and that the same counsel
approached the door 10 the court room. to
listen when he was ordered away, and
that this conduct was communicated to
Judge Hall the mex morning just as he
was going on the bench.
He also offered / prove by Mr.. Gephart
the Court Crier, that the same counsel was
seen standing at the other door Of the jury
room at the head of stairs leading thereto,
while the jury were celebrating and that
their conversation could be heard. The
offered this evidence as he stated
for the purpose Of showing that this was
one ofthe causes which led the court TO
its rebul e on the next morning
10 the counsel when q motion was present
ed to have the jury polled, the o be-
that the counsel had knowledge Of
what the verdict Of the jury was. That
Mr.. Greevy knew Of this a the Of
The reprimand, that he was in court when
The counsel admitted that he had asked
how the jury stood and said that he
he had q right to do that and fur
Lher as a part of the offer to show that Mr..
Greevy with this knowledge rushed into
The public prints. denounced the court az
lyrannical and super essed the facts which
lead to the occurrence IN court.
Messrs. Speer and Shapley vigorously
this offer stating that it was an al
Tempt I bring in q side issue. and that the
of other counsel in connection
with the case about which Mr.. Greevy
had commented, had nothing TO do with il.
Mr.. L~ongenecxer claimed thattEeir sup
o fthe whole occurrence. and his
OF . one side ref or slowed
he motive of m llice.
The court decided to hear the testimo-
ny.
Messrs. Speer and Shlpley then askel
and obtained permission to with
iraw from the case. The evidence Of
.eefe and Gephart was then heard sub
,tantially as stated in the Offer, they swear
&h.s.lo <...rl ~, .n.rpxo1 IN main