The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-10-22
THE TERRY CONTEMPT CASE.

Questions Raised That the Supreme Court
Has Never Before Passed Upon.
Washington Special to New York sun.
1t is expected that the Supreme Court on
Monday will render q decision in the matter of
the application of Judge d. S. Terry, Of Califo--
MIA, for a writ Of habeas corpus to relieve him
from imprisonment in Alameda county Jail,
where he is confined for contempt of the United
States Circuit Court for the district of Califor-
MIA. Shellabarger and Wilson, Of this city, are
Judge Terry's attorneys, and the brief they have
submitted in support of his petition for q writ
of habess corpus raises questions which have
never before been passed upon by the Supreme
Court. The circumstances of Terry's com nit
ment for contempt in the SharoD-Hillc case are
too familiar to require repetition. Terry drew
a knife upon officers of the court aud knocked
down the United States marshal in the presence
of the court while Justice Fled was rendering
the decisio, in the Sharon case. He was not.
however. WITHIN the presence of the court when
a~diudged guilty Of contempt.
In their application for the writ .Terry's coun-
sci lay stress upon the fact that the court record
does not show that Terry was III court when he
was sentenced for contempt, and that no oppor.
tunity was given him TO make q defense. The
federal courts having limited Jurisdiction, and
the record not showing Terry's presence when
adjudged guilty Of the ~offense, it being a crimi-
nal case. the legal presumption to the reviewing
court must be, 90 counsel aver, that the lower
court lacked jurisdiction. Various authorities
are cited to show that United States courts hav-
ing limited jurisdiction, the presump tion in
every stage of the case in question is that the
Circuit Court was without jurisdiction, unless
the contrary appears from its records. The
judgment in the present case was wholly
independent, counsel assert, OF the
case on trial when the contempt
was committed, and was strictly criminal
in its nature, and that there can be no presump-
ton, in the absence of Terry from the court
room. that the court had jurisdiction in his
case, because i: bad jurisdiction of the case on
trial when the sentence was pronounced. The
fact OF the absence of the relator, he having no
opportunity to be heard in court when adiudged
guilty OF contempt, goes, counsel say, directly
to the power OF the court TO either consider the
merits or render a Judgment OF Imprisonment.
1t 10 contended that the fact of the absence
from court of the relator at the time of his con-
~viction. and the total want of notice of any such
proceeding as resulted in his conviction, ID one
which defeats the idea Of the Jurisdiction of the
court. To show that notice must be given in a
court OF limited jurisdiction. various suthori-
ties, among them decisions nv Judge Cooley,
Justices Field, Swayne and Wood, are cited.
The point IL also submitted TO the court tba
tended dlsrespect TO the court purges him Of
contempt, and entities the prisoner to his dis
charge absolutely. Terry's attorney says:
Whatever may be the view of the court re-
garding other points now submitted. the relator
must be DISCHARGED on the ground that this
court can never give its august and supreme
sanction to that rule Of law or practice which,
without ~affording to . citizen accused any man
per Of notice or even hint regarding the accusa-
ton against him, and with no sort OF opportu-
nifty to be heard, proceeds in his absence to sc-
cuse, to try, to pronounce Judgment, and to or
der him to he imprisoned: this for an alleged
offense committed a. a time preceding aud sepa-
rated from the commencement of his prosecu-
f;op -