The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1880-01-08

THE JOHNSON CONTEMPT CAsR.-The
hearing Of the argument on the return Of
the ruie in the case of Mr.. O. O. John:
son for an alleged contempt In publishing
certain statements concerning Andrew
King aud John Maxwell, was had before
Judge Melvin in the Circuit Court yester-
day, Messrs. W. P. Hubbard and H. NJ.
Russell appearing for King, and Mr.. III.
Woods for defendant.
The affidavit OF Andrew King on which
the proceeding Is based was filed sometime
since and reads as follows:
| am one OF the defendants in an in
dictment now pending in this court OF the
State OF West Virginia, against James
Maxwell and Andrew King. On the It'll
day OF December, 1870, an editorial OF a
newspaper called the Sunday Leader was
published In said county and clrculatedin
the city Of Wheeling, and also in that part
\ Of said county not embraced In said city.
A copy Of the said newspaper Of that date
is filed herewith rs part OF this affidavit.
The article therein on the eighth page
headed "The Gas Committee" has refer.
ence 10 me and 10 the charges contained
In the said Indictment. The statement IN
the said article, yesterday Mr.. Kings
bondsman, Mr.. Durkin, was objected to
by the city's counsel and he was replaced
by another Is wholly false. The change
In my bond by which another was substi'
tuted for Durkin, was made at my in
stance because OF Mr.. Durkin's temporary
absence from the city, and not because oil
any objection then urged. The statement
in the said article that ut seems to be a
growing belief that rather than stand a
trial the accused will prefer 10 go West
and grow up with the country" was an
intimation, wholly ialse and unwarranted
that said Maxwell and myself intended TO
avoid trial upon said indictment by alb
sconding from tho State. The said news
paper has frequently sincethe beginning Of
proceedings against said Maxwell and
myself, published articles rejecting upon
Eus and calculated to arouse q prejudice
against us in said city aud county, and TO
induce a beliefin u guilt as Is the case
in tue article mentioned above.
TSipned1 ANDREW KING.
A partial hearing OF the matter was had
on Wednesday, December 3lst, last, but
as substantially the same points were ar
gued yesterday, no further reference 10 the
first hearing need'he made, In the argu.
ments Yesterday Messrs. Hubbard and
Russell upheld the right Of the court 10
punish the alleged contempt directly under
section q OF chapter l47, code OF West
Virginia, which provides, among other
things, that the courts aud judges thereof
may issue attachments for conteinpts and
punish them summarily 'for. misbehayior
in the presence Of the court or 50 near
thereto as to obstruct or interrupt the adj
ministration Of Justice, urging that the
contempt charged was committed as to
this tribunal SO as 10 interfere with the
proper discharge OF its iunOtlons.. Mr..
Woods argued on the other hand, that to
give the court the right 10 punish sum
marily under this clause OF the section,
there must be some misbehaviOr commit.
ted either In the presence OF the court or
SO near II as TO constitute an obstruction.
Kings counsel asked that in the event
OF the court deciding that It could not
punish summarily the offence charged,
that it hold Mr.. johnson to bail to an
swer an Indictment by the grand jury, but
this point was but partially argued pending
the decision OF the first, which was taken
under adyisement by Judge Melvin.
There are more law points in the case
than can be dealt with conveniently in q
newspaper article. The common law pro-
visions concerning contempts Of court en-.
braced a large variety Of offences and the
legislature OF Virginia in 1880 undertook
to define which OF them could be punish
ed summarily by the courts under rule
and attachment,and to fix penalties there.
for. This statute Of Virginia obtained in
this State, and Is in effect the eth sec.
Of chapter l47 OF the Code above referredto
Contempts not provided for in this sec
ton may be punished through indictment
by a grand Jury, and the question in the
johnson case seems to be whether the
court can deal with 1t direct or whether
it must, il prosecuted further, be present.
ed by the grand jury,