The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1881-06-11

In the circuit court here on Monday after,
noon. Col. VIM. p. Maulsby was adJudged
guilty .'of misbehavior in open court, 10y
Judge Hayden, and fined SO and sent to jan
until it was paid. At the time the case OF
Edwin J. Crumrine, garnishee, VS.. HohacAeT
& Son, was on trial. Messrs. Roberts ana
Smith were counsel for the appellant, ana
Judge Maulsby who appeared for the appel
Iee) was cross examining Mr.. Crumrlne Wheh
the alleged offence was committed.
Chief Justice Bartol, of the Court OF Ap'
meals. was applied to for a writ of habeas cor
ms and came here and heard the case on
"Wednesday morning Gen. Bradley 1. John
son appeared for the petitioner and state
ATTORNEY d. n. Henning represented the
State. The case was opened by Gen. John.
son fling A traverse to the Judge order OF
commitment. in which the petitioner denied
that he was delivered into the custody OF SAID
sheriff and Imprisoned under and IN virtue oil
said order or Judgment annexed to said re-
turn. claiming that such Judgment had oeeh
rendered during his absence and while ne was
already prisoner in Jail, and calling ior me
particular acts or words constituting the al
legged misbehavior. In other words the petit
TONER claimed that he had been peremptouiy
ordered to pay fine Of $40, and 10 be com
mitted to iai until it shall have been paid
without being told why or for what oitense'
and claimed to be unconscious then and now
of having said or done anything calling Tor
or requiring such action.
Argument was heard on both sides, and
the petitioner, Col. Maulsby, and Messrs.
Cbas. T. Reifsuider, JAS 4. c. Bond. Doug
las b. smith, George NJ. Pearce and Vim. l..
Seabrook. all attorneys at this bar, we're eX-
amned as to the particular occurrences N
court Just preceding and during the court
action i'm posing the fine. There were some
VARYING statements on these points, none
of the witnesses recollecuRg the exact words
used by the court at the time. 1t appeared,
bovrever. that the court and the petitioner
misappreheuded each the other : meaning or
intention. Col Maulshy was examining Mr.
Crumrine as to how he ascertained certain
facts and the issue between the court and nm
was as 10 whether or not a certain question had
baen answered. The court claimed that II
had been answered frequently, whereupon
Col. Maulsby, as he swore in his cToss-eXam-
ination, put another question to the vat
ness to suit, as he supposed, the rahng Of 'hs
court and to draw out different testimony
but the court regarded the question different
ouly in form aud as intended 10 draw oGt the
same testimony. and Immediately judged HIM
guilty Of misbeharior in open court aud Iia-
posed the fine, &c. noted above.
In irving an opinion Judge Rartoi latina
ted that he would not consider the testimony
produced. for IL was not competent tor hlm to
review In this case the action OF The CucWt
Cour, for Carroll county. He proclaimed
the power Of courts TO iuhict summary pun
ishment for coutempts committed 10 The pres
ence Of the court: said It ives the duty OF
courts 20 maintain their dignity aud order.
aad that what constituted contempt was
matter resting solely within the breast OF the
court. He thereupon denied the petition and
remauded the petitioner 10 the custody Of The
sheriff until the sentence Of the court shall
have been obeyed.
After this decision was rendered Col.
Maulsbv said There caa be no possible
combination Of human circumstances under
which will pay the fine, aud am ready for
the custody OF the sheriff He was then con
duc.ed back to jai', whore be had been since
Monday afternoon.
Later in the day member OF Col Aauls-
by's family paid the sine and he Was released
from custody.
Mach interest was mault c SIZED N the pro
ceediars, and the courtroom vas allied daring
the entire hearing. Mrs. Maulsby and sew
eral other ladies were preseut, aud many rep
resentative men from 81 parts Of the county;
also Wm p. MaaIsby, JF.. Of Frederick-