West Virginia argus. [volume] (Kingwood, W. Va.) 1877-1946, 1889-08-29

preston. And as the sacred calling Of the min.
istry Of the gospel suffers by the fall OF single
minister. so the whole bar suffers by the trickery
dishonesty or falsehood, spoken or acted. OF a
single unworthy member OF the bar Nc Is the
duty Of the courts 10 see To IL that truth and
honesty Is maintained In every member Of the
bar For this among other reasons did the Leg
islature declare that courts might summarily
punish as contempt among other things "misbe
havior OF an officer Of the court In his Official
character" II the charge In the rule Ii true the
defendant Ii guilty Of contempt. On the return
day OF the rule. the defendant appeared and an
swered in which he denied that he had demand
ed separate trial for Devall. and denied that
he had been counsel for Devail until the 18th
day OF August. There was general replication
10 the answer and evidence was heard by the
court both for the State and defendant. To my
mind. the overwhelming weight OF the evidence
was that said Ralphsnydcr did demand a sever
ance In the trial on the 18th day Of August 1880
and denied 10 the court the next day that he
had made any such demand. IL Is proved by the
evidence beyond reasonable doubt In the mind
Of the court, that I. c. Ralphsnyder was the
counsel for Devall from the 10th day of April,
1889. when be was examined by the justice for
the offence Jointly charged against him and the
said John Gidley, until the case against said
court. The Justice. Goodwin, testified ne
appeared for Devall on the 10th day OF
April 1899, and his docket shows H. He also
TESTIFIED that after he had examined Gidley, l. C.
Ralphsnyder waived an examination for Devall
III. Q. Hyde and ID. Y Morris testified to the same
facts. l. c. Ralphsnyder and his brother George
In their evidence both admitted thatI c. Ralph.
snyder announced TO the justice that Deyall
waived an examination. 10 Il also proved that
the defendant, Ralphsnyder, appeared Mt the
April term Of the circuit court for the defend.
ants and did not intimate he was counsel for one
and not the other. The said I. c. Ralphsnyder
and his brother George. IL Is true, both testified
that i. c. Ralphsnyder was not counsel for Deyall
until this term OF the circuit court, that George
was Devall's counsel before the justice and I. c.
was the counsel for Gldey, yet at this term OF
the court he appeared for Devall, and abandon
ed Gidley's defence, as he claims because Brown
the defendant for Gidley had demanded a sew.
GRANGE. Notwithstanding the testimony OF the
two Ralphsnyders, from the positive Testimony
OF other witnesses and from the facts and cir.
cumstancos OF the case, I am convinced beyond
a reasonable doubt, that I. G. Ralphsnyder was
counsel for Devall before the Justice and from
that time TO tho timc OF his conviction of the
offense charged against him at the present term
and that no was perfectly familiar with his case
oiN Wich ho induo lne statement To tile court
that he had just been employed for Deyall and
was not familiar with the case that he inten-
tiohally made false statement with intent TO
deceive the court, and then when the falsity OF
the statement was made TO appear on the trial
OF Devall, he added Insult to the injury he had
Inflicted on the pure administration OF jnstIce
when without attempting to palliate his offense
he remarked to the prosecutius attorney, "what
are you going TO do about IL f"As much as tosay
suppose did try to deceive the court by a false
statement-'what are you going to do about itt'm
What effect would such an exhibition likely To
have ON the bystandersY Is not it's tendency to
bring the court into content What respect
can the citizens have for a court that
would, In silence, pass by such an offence In n
member OF Its barr The court could not at once
act, because the said Ralphsnyder was nj the
time defending Devall. To have spoken then
and issued the rule or fined the offender would
have been To prejudice the defendant, Devall
before the Jury. The court could not In Justice
have done less than II has done Ralphsnyder
does not deny the charge that he said to the
court that he had Just been employed for Deyall
and was not familiar with his case lie asserts
In his answer that II is true that he was employ
ed for Devall on the day he made the statement
but he docs not pretend inihs answer that that
part Of his statement was true that declared he
was not familiar with the case. All the facts
and circumstances show he was familiar with
the case. The court is OF the opinion that an
attachment against the said l. c. Ralphsnydor
should issue, and IL is so ordered.