Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-01-30
BEFORE THE COURT.

Patterson and Livingston was heard the
case Of Messrs. Steinman and Hensel, cdi-
tors of the INTELLIGENCER and members
of the Lancaster bar, upon whom Judge |
Patterson had served rules to answer for |
contempt of court, and to show cause why |
they should not be disbarred. -
The bar was densely packed with attor-
neys, every seat being occupied and large
numbers being compelled to stand. The
court room was filled interested spccta-
tors.
On motion of Ii. NJ North, esq, Rufus
E. Shapley, ESQ.,, Of Philadelphia, was
admitted to practice before the courts of
this county.
At 10 o'clock Judge Patterson stated
that the hour had arrived at which Messrs.
Steinman and Hensel were to answer the
rules served Oh them.
Mr.. Steinman rose and said he and Mr..
Hensel were prepared to answer through
counsel.
Judge Patterson said that was not what
was wanted the answer should be in
writing and sworn to.
Mr.. Shapley said he held in his hand the
sworn answers of Messrs. Steinman &
Hensel. They had been printed, and if
it pleased the court he would read the
answers, or was prepared to argue the
case, as the court should direct.
Judge Patterson said the answers should
he read before the argument commenced.
Mr.. Shapley then read the answer to the
rule made by Mr.. Steinman, and stated
that Mr.. Hcnsel's answer was in the same
words, excepting the name of respondent.
The answer was as follows:
And now, January 3Oth, 1880, the said
Andrew j. Steinman comes into court
and for answer to the above rule to show
cause why he should not appear and an
swer for contempt, respectfully says:
l. That the said proceedings are irregu-
lar and said rule was improvidently grant
ed, because said rule was not entertained
upon complaint, supported by affidavit,
setting forth the precise charges against
him, but appears to have been entered by
the court of it's own motion, for matters
not occurring in the presence of the court
and of which the court had no judicial
knowledge.
2. That the publication set forth in the
PREDATORY part of said rule was made out of
court in the LANCASTER DAILY INTELLI-
GENCER, newspaper published in the city
of Lancaster, by the respondent as one of
the publishers of the said newspaper, and
was made in good faith, without malice
and for the public good, of and concerning
case of great public Importance which
had been, before the writing of said publ
full 1ol Iofn ,,,I IN,
which the respondent had no interest as an
attorney and not of and concerning any
case depending and undetermined in this
honorable court ; and therefore the respond
ent is not anSwerable, under the law, for
a contempt by reason of said publication.
3. That the proceedings recitcd in the
PREDATORY part of said rule as having taken
place in the presence of the court did not
occur in any legal proceeding in said court
and were caram non ,judice, and the re-
spOndent is not answerable for any con-
tempt by reason of any Of said answers
made in said recited proceedings, or by
reason of his declining to answer any of
the said questions prOpOunded to him by
your honorable court but the said re-
spondent says that having been sent for
and interrOgated as aforesaid by said
court, he answered said interrOgatories re-
spectfully and truthfully. and was guilty
Of no contempt in the said recitcd prem
ises.
Wherefore the respondent respectfully
submits that the said rule to show cause
why he should not appear and answer for
contempt should be discharged.
And for answer to the above rule upon
him to show cause why he should not be
stricken from the list of attorneys for mis-
behavior in his office of attorney of this
court, respectfully says:
1. That the said proceedings are irrcgu-
lar, and said rule was improvidently grant
ed because said rule was not entered upon
a complaint, supported by affidavit, setting
forth the precise charges against him, but
appears to have been entered by the court
of its own motion, for matters not occur
ring in the presence of the court and of
which the court had no judicial knOwl-
edge.
2. That the said proceeding is irregular,
because, if the charge against him be that
he published a ibelOus article in the said
newspaper, of which he is one of the pub
fishers, it amounts to an indictable Offense,
not committed by him in the presence of
the court, OF while acting Us an officer of
the court, and therefore he cannot be
shall have been tried and convicted accord
ing to law Of said indictable offense and
he respectfully suggests that this court is
not competent to determine, in this form
of proceeding, that the respondent did un-
lawfully and maliciously publish, out of
court, a libel upon the court, and to hear
and determine disputed questions of fact,
involving the motive of the respondent
and the official conduct of the court ITSELF !
3. That if it be intended to charge him
with misbehaviOr in his Office of attorney,
by reason of the said recited occurrence in
presence of the court, said occurrences did |
not take place in any legal proceeding in
said court, and were cOrdm non .judice !: |
and the respondent is not answerablc in |
this proceeding by reason of any said |
answers made in said recited proceedings,
or by reason of his declining to |
answer any of said questions propounded |
to him by the court but he says that,
having been sent for and interrOgated as
aforesaid by the court, he answered said |
interrogatOries respectfully and truthfully,
and was guilty of no misbehavior in his
office of attorney by reason of said recited |
premises.
4. The publication referred to was not
made by the respondent within the pres
ence of the court, or while acting as an at
torney and officer of the court, or of, or
concerning any case pending and unde-
termined in said court, but was made by
him solely in his capacity as publisher of
a newspaper, out of court, and while acting
in good faith, without malice and for the
public good, Of and concerning case of
liz H. - y L L