The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-12-06
GEO. PARKS TRIAL.
The Jury Fail to Agree In the
POstmaster's Case.
THE PRISONER IN CONTEMPT.
n4ratts of Fuca Declared Not Foreixn
Waters-Giaxier Sentenced to
Two Ysars--Ths Blotter.

The case Of the United States against George
Parks postmaster at Gilman, indicted for with.
holding 1t his postoffice q letter directed to
Charles A. Lampkin, deputy United States mar.
shsi which has been on trial for two days in
thu United states court, was submitted to the
,ury 1t s.l5 yesterday afternoon. After being
ami eight hours the jury failed to agree, and was
di,cbsrged. The case will probably be tried
asaiu within q week.
The Istter which has made SO much troubls
~ from United states Marshal Brown to Mr.
kmpkin, who was then deputy marshal, and
vm incIosed in an official envelope Pos,mas-
IT Parks refused to deliver IL unless Iampkin
psoduced his commission, which he refused to
DO. Offering to identity himself as the person TO
whom It was addressed, and so identifying him.
self BY three witnesses, two of whom were In
the employ OF the seattle Coal d Iron Company.
Parks refused to accept this Identification, be-
cause, a. be stated on the witness stand. he
adid not recognize those kind of people as wit
uesses,' charaeterlzing them as "sulliysn
guards" At this point the United States at.
torney asked Mr.. Parks the following question:
Did you refuse to deliver the letter to the per-
doubted that he was the Charles A. Lampkin to
whom II was directed and for whom IL was in.
tended7
Parks In reply started off with long explain
alton, when the attorney stopped him by telling
him that he bad had enough OF that kind of an
swers, and directed the witness to answer the
question "Yes' or NO." and then to explain a.
long as he wanted to-in fact, shat he could
explain till Christmas IL he wanted to-"
Parks declined TO answer the question, and
Judge Hanford said that sometimes attorneys
asked complicated questions which could not
be answered "yes" or emo" with fairness to the
witness, but that this not that kind OF Q
question, and that the witness must answer a.
directed.
Parks remaining silent. Judge Hanford or
dered the clerk TO enter q fine of $40 against
him for contempt OF court
The United States attorney again repeated the
question aud the Judge ordered the witness to
answer Upon his refusal again, the Judge said
70 the clerk:
Enter order that, the witness having re-
fused in open court TO answer a question after
being directed to do so by the court, he be COM
mitted TO Jail until Monday at 10 o'clock, 10
which time the case will stand adjourned when
the defendant will be given another opportunity
to answer this question.
At this point Parks attorney interceded In his
behalf. and upon Colonel Winston's saying that
II Parks would apologize to the court for the
contempt aud would take the witness stand and
at once answer the question, he would be con.
tent that the contempt order be revoked. There
upon the Judge directed Mr. Winston to put the
question In writing. which he did. Parks
promptly answered the question mo"
The theory OF the government was that Parks
detained the letter In order to force Lampkin to
show his commission, that he might use the
fact that Lampkin was a deputy marshal In q
controversy on that point then going on with
Marshal Brown. 1t was claimed by the United
States attorney in his address TO the jury that II
Parks answered the question EYES," he gave up
the role OF hero which he was assuming az the
defender OF the community In which he lived
txpf -
marshals, while II he answered mo" he viz.
tuaiiy admitted his guilt.
Lampkin was not present, having been re-
hsved OF his commission last May by Marshal
Brown. Mr.. Parks came into the room armed
with bundle OF OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES and evi.
IDENTIFY cooked and primsd for the occasion, but,
interesting al this reading would doubtless
have proved, 1t, together with all other ex-
trsnsous matter. was promptly ruled out BY the
Judge.