Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-01-22
MONSIEUR ToNsoN COME AGAIN.
CALLED INTO COURT ONCE MORE.

CALLED INTO COURT ONCE MORE.
Judge Patterson Sends His T,pstave for t''
Editors Of tho Intslligencer-TO Hear
Rule that he Might have
had Delivered in the
Regular Way
That suavest Of tipstaves, MIR. Erisman
alfably interrupted the busiest hour in tn
editorial rooms of the IsTELLIGENcER ofiic
this morning to inform its editors, Messrs
Steinman and Hepsel, that the court wante'
them. They went The court was polite
bade them be seated and suspended al
business to give them its undivided atten
ton. Judge Patterson was alone On TIN
bench. Judge Livingston was not to be
seen.
The court said it had sent for them tt
read rule that could just as well have
been served upon them in the regular way,
but it thought they might like to hear it.
Whereupon Judge Patterson read at
length the rule, which we only refrain
from publishing to-day because the court
would not allow us to have the original,
and the clerk did not have the copies
ready nor served upon us in time to print
it.
The rule purported to recitc at length
the proceedings of yesterday in court,
when Messrs. Steinman and Hensel
were arraigncd before the bench.
1t concluded by notifying Mr.. IIensel to
appear in court next Tuesday at 10 a. m,
to show cause, under oath, why he should
not answer for contempt, and also to show
cause why his name should not be stricken
from the list of practising attorneys. lie
said that the rule in Mr.. Steinman's case
was precisely the same, saving the change
of names.
The respondents directed the attention
of the court to the fact that its version of
what took place yesterday was not correct.
Mr.. Hensel asked the court if it had any
stenographic or other official report of the
same.
Judge Patterson said he was his own
stenographcr Oh this occasion and remcm-
bercd pretty well what was said. If the
answers as lie had them were incorrect re-
spondents could give their version in their
answer.
Mr.. Steinman said that when the court
asked respondents if they adopted the sen
timents of the article in question they SIM
ply replied that they had not said so and
did not give any such reply as was stated
III the rule.
Judge Patterson said that Mr.. Steinman
iienSel did not.
Mr. Hensel said that to the question,
put twice, both he and MIR. Steinman dis
tinctly answered I'VE have not said
so.''
Afterwards. Mr.. Hensel having left the
courtroom, Judge Patterson corrected
his own stenographic report to conform
to Mr.. Steinman's demand, SO far as it re-
lated to him, but not to Mr. IIensel.1
Mr. UenseI further said that he desired
to make general exception to the whole
statement of facts rs set forth in the rule,
and that i'll all material portions the yer-
sion given was incorrect and not
true account of what occur
red. Moreover, if these matters of
fact were to be made subjects of prelim-
mary disputation and proof, the time given
to answer was very short, not being as
long as the law allows to maintain or re-
linquish disputed title to an old iron kettle;
certainly the rights of a member of the bar
were entitled to as much consideration.
The court concurred and changed the re-
turn day to Friday, Jan. 80 at 10 a. IN.
Mr.. IIensel further wanted to know il III
all the stages of this case respondents were
to be called into court and away from
other engagements to near rules read that
in ordinary cases were served as other
legal processes by the officers of the
court.
Judge Patterson said it was not necessary
TO have the rules read and he did not know
he was intcrrupting respondents 10y sum-
mOning them into court. He then address
ed to all present his views on the impropri-
city of newspaper criticisms on the court
said that he had no feeling in the case, and
that if it was his father that stood in the
place of respondents he would be dealt
with in the same way.
The regular order of court business was
then resumed.