The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-03-08
FRICTION OF THE COURTS
Judge Harper, of the Superior, Writes
Some Earning Wordsto Judge Brown.
All Over that Dou ble- Barreied Receiver
ship-An Intelligent Jury.

me 5tatemeut w Juugo DTOWu, OIL tuo
Circuit Court last Saturday, relating to
the action of his court in the Bennett re-
ownership, has called out a direct reply by
Judge Harper. addressed to Judge Brown.
1t is printed below. and. rs will be seen. in
dictates a method of settling she contention
as to which court first acquired jurisdiction
of the matter. 1t will be recalled that
William H. Bennett. having preferred
number of creditors by means of chattel
mortgages, was put into the hands of q re-
ceiver on application of the Encaustlc tile
works Judge Harper appointed Smith II.
Myers as receiver. Afteward the Hagen
Mantel Company, which had secured
a judgment on account against Bennett,
applied for receiver In Judge Browns
court, on ground that no appearance had
been made in Judge Harper's court by the
defendant. The application was held good.
and Frederick w. Cady was appointed re-
ceiver. Then arose the question of when
the appearance was made. and the smooth
surface of affairs yielded to ruf1led tempere.
In which O Judge and an attorney gave
contradictory testimony, the lie was OK
changed between this attorney and the
clerk of courtroom No 2 and receiver
Myers was ordered to jail for contempt of
court. He was allowed to dine with the
sheritfs deputy was held for contempt.
Receiver Myers was only saved from actual
incarceration, with the alternative of de-
livering over the store 70 receiver Cady, 10y
interpositi0n OF q writ of habeas
corpus by which he was released. He still
holds charge of the store. Since all hinges
on the fact of whether Benefits attorney
had made an appearance or not previous to
the Circuit Courts action as Deputy Clerk
Brown testified he did. it is pertinent to
state that Mr.. Brown has the affidavit of q
disinterested person confirming his Clerk
Brown'sl version of the appearance. With
these facts III mind. the following letter be-
comes of more Ineligible interest:
INDIANAPOLIS, March z.
Judge Brown:
Strip to the present there has been no &C.
casion for my giving much official attention TO
has not occupied moro than twenty minutes OF
the time of my court. because its orders have all
been promptly executed by the proper officers
and the receiver have appointed has not been
materially Obstructed. The nOt0riety OF the case
has emanated from your proceedings. of which l.
like others, have been informed through the
newspapers. Had you not made the statement
to tie public on Saturday In which there is mis-
iead.Dg error. 1 should continue silent. Inow
think it high time that the matter he settled,
and will at once direct my receiver, Mr..
Myers, to dismiss his appeal from your
proceedings In which he was not authorized
| to appear; you can thereupon formally attach
him for contempt. then he will resort TO habeas
corpus proceedings before a judge OF the SUI
I,
the records In my court, and atiidavits Of fact
which such records are based, also aflidavits
traversing the same, II Mar; Myers was or was
not receiver in fact and in law before any case
was commenced In your court. IL such judge
decides he was, thcn, on tho proper motion. the
orders In your court shall be vacated, otherwise
| mino shall be. OF course, L hold IA q matter OF
law that IL any OF my introductory orders
DEGREES are contrary to law, as you may under
stand IL, in this or any other case, you cannot
modify or set them aside; but L despise subter-
fuges in men and doubly Gespise them in judge
counsel TO confine the inquiry to the main ques-
| ton A duplicate OF this Will be furnished the
reporters. JAMES W. HAKPER.
Ignorance Might Have Cost Him Dearly.
In the case Of the State VS.. Ora Bright,
In she Criminal Court. yesterday. there WAS
| O misunderstanding on the part of some of
the jurors as to the penalty prescribed by
law. Young Bright, o minor. was charged
with stealing q ring and razor from q
man named Chew in Franklin township.
The jury returned verdict of guilty. and
affixed the sentence at one years imprison-
ment in the county Jail and the payment of
| 81. Mr.. Duncan. the prisoners attorney.
Immediately arose and asked the court if
the Jury fully understood that for such an
Otfense the prison sentence might be less
| than one year. Several of the jury ut once
replied that they did not so understand.
Judge Cox replied that he had plainly IN
structed the jury that one year was the
maximum sentence. but allowed il TO re-
| tire and amend its verdict. Upon the re-
| turn of the jury to the courtroom the YER
| dict was that the prisoner be confined in
| the county Jail for four months. disfran-
chised for the same time and pay o fine
of 81.
Grand Jury and the Puga
Judge Cox yesterday called the attention
of the grand jury to the published viola
tlons of the law in reference to prize-f light
ing. He cited the statute making such
proceedings punishable as misdemeanOrs,
| and directed them to investigate
| and see whether the law had
| been violated within the mean
| ing of the section quoted. 1t is thought
| the recent mill In West Indianapolis. in
| which two negroes named Venaa bic and
Williams engaged, led the cOurttO take