Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-11-13

widespread attention In legal c,rclrs
flemons, Lakewood & Temnleton Nerr
charged with contempt of court IN an
tainlng the writ OF hahcas corpus from
said court by representing to The CONT.
N the written application for said writ
that they had previously, to wit. on the
9th OF October, apple to Tho Hon. h. II.
Nllliams Tor the writ, and he had refused
70 grant II until The sitting of the court
at wichita Falls, about fifteen DAYS from
thc date OF the application. 1t was fur
lner charged that this representation was
untrue aud that therefore the Jurisdiction
OF the court Of appeals had been Imposed
on. The respondents set up in their
answer to the rule that the representa-.
/ IONS and statements made TO the court
I OF appeals were trne, aud gave a detailed
( statement OF the facts In reference TO Ga,
matter. Upon this issue the case was
heard. Ailldaviis from Judge Williams
and from O, +. Finley, district attorney.
anda letter from l.. G. Barrett, prosecutors
IN the murder case against the Merchant
boys, together With other ntlidavits mud
/ letters, were put in evidence hy tho rs.
sistant attorney-gcneral, while the re-
spondents reliUdupon their sworn answer
TO the rule, the original application made
to Judge Williams and his Endorsement
thereon, which Endorsement was. In sub.
stance, that the within application is
granted aud sheriff ordered 10 have the
! Merchants at Wichita Falls on October
%, 1885, and clerk 10 issue process for
Witnesses aud signod by Judge Williams.
The respondents were represented by
n. w, Finley of Tyler, one OF the finest
young lawyers IN the state, and
sam J. Hunter Of Fort Worth, and the
point was pressed upon the court that
Judge Williams fiat was not in compll.
ancc with his duty in such cases, that he
should have issued and signed formal
writ OF habeaS corpus, aud being then
idle for two weeks taking vacation, as the
proof shows, should have made the writ
returnable at once that judge had no
|. right to grant writ and set it for hear
/. Ing two or three weeks off unless his du.
ties as Judge prevented him from hearing
: it earlier That such action was tana-
mount 20 denial of the writ altogether,
j and counsel had the right TO SO regard ii.
, The case elected great interest at Ty-
, Ter, and the court of appeals room
: was well oiled TO hear the trial. The
/ courts opinion, by Presiding Justice
: White, was substantially rs follows; lie
= regretted that press of business and
, want of time prevented the court from
delivering u written opinion, aud wa,
I happy to be able, after hearing the whole
, case, TO fully cXOucrate and discharge
the respondents from the charge of con
; tempt made against them. lie also re-
grctted the circumstances that callet
forth the remarks Of the court In refer
encc to Judge Williams, when grantin.
ln fta said M a.,
=, parent to the court from said application
: that he had denied sacred right OF tht
citizen in not granting the writ when an
i piled to. He said that, from all the evi
= dcncc submitted TO them, that II,
! formal writ was issued, but tina
- the Endorsement on the application
no doubt, was intended 10y Judge vii
, liams as 4 writ, aud would probably hav
= answered the pur ose of writ, if 1t ha,
Z, been presented to the sheriff. That know
2 ing personally the high and HONORABLE
:. standing of the respondents, both as gen
! tlemen and as lawyers, the court coul,
not believe for a moment that they wcr
guilty, as charged, and that their answer
and the evidence clearly showed the
.. were not, and that they were fully exon
era ed from the charge, and would b
fully and Internationally discharged frol
= the rule.
~ After the delivery of the opinion, an
the Judge had come down from tn
bench, judges, lawyers and officers a
4, congratulated Judge Plemons and Nj
,, Lakewood upon their honorable az
: quittal, aud there was a joyous hand
), shaking over the result,
: MIR. Hunter said that frequently tn
= courts, even where respondents are di,
charged, will tax them with the costs, bit
3 in this instance their innocence was 5
;, clear and the charge against them 5
y, groundless that they were discharge
% fully aud Internationally. His client
u however, he says, offered to pay the cler
" of the court of appeals, Il. =. Smith, h
n costs, but he refused to accept it, sccln
u the gross injustice that had been done
" his clients in the institution of this pr,
n ceeding against them