Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1892-02-18
FINED $50.
Judge R. j. Boykin Adjudged to be in
Contempr Of Court.

Judge r. j. BoyIxin Adjudged to be in
Contempr of Court.
The Burchard case has been eloquent Of
confusion and conflict, and for things that
are queer and matters that are mixed this
celebrated case is peculiar. Judge Boykin
appeared in court and was represented by
c. B. Stewart Of Gainesville, +. w. Ball, c.
r. Bowlin, and W. Erskine Williams OF
Fort Worth. Proceedings were resumed
and counsel for res pondent began their ar
gument. They contended with much ear
uestness and persuasion that inasmuch as
the writ of injunction had not been issued
until s 80 o'clock OF Tuesday morning that
it could not have binding force on Judge
Boykiu who endeavored with his client to
get the child in obedience to the orders of
the county court some hours previous TO
the issuance of the writ, and moreover that
Mr.. Stewart and Judge ,Boykin averred
that they did not hear the court say that he
was going to issue the writ, Other and
further argument was adduced. to show
that the petition Tor the injunction was
void on its face, and that the court could
not, of its own knowledge, except on direct
appeal, take judicial knowledge of the ir-
regularity of the court below in appointing
the father the guardian of the child Judge
Beckham. after reviewing at considerable
length the various stages of the case, an
nounced that Judge r. ]. Boykin, having
knowledge OF LUG IdCJ IldJ u WITH OF lulu Qc-
ton was about to be issued, it was sufficient
to put him on notice, and in advising and
assisting his client to procure possession of
the child, he was clearly guilty of contempt,
and that in the mind OF the court the only
question of import was as tOthe degree of
punishment to infiict. He then imposed a
fine of $50 on the respondent, Judge Boykin.
Many attorneys voluntarily came forward
and offered to pay the fine from their pri-
vate purse, which kindly offer Judge Boy
kin firmly, but courteously, refused to ac-
cept The end is not yet, as the counsel
for the father, E. P. Burchard, candidly
gave the court to understand that they in
tended invoking other remedies, through
the medium of the county court, and
be adjudged to be in contempt of that
honorable court. Judge Beckham in the
course of his decision remarked that it was
q mistake to assert that there existed
conflict between his court and Judge
Harris. If it be not a conflict lawyers
would like some photographer to find
correct denomination for the controversy
that now RACES so fercely between the two
tribunals. One court declares it has au-
thority to have its writs executed ana the
other court has intimated very strongly
that any endeavor to carry them out will
subject the officer to fine for contempt.
Editor Gazette:
1 notice in the Evening Mail of to-day the
opinion delivered by Judge Beckham this
morning in the contempt case against my
self. never appear in the papers for any
trivial cause-always avoid that kind of
notoriety.
However, in view Of the publication of
Judge Beckham's opinion in the Mail and
the probability that it viii be in The GA
zETTE in the morning, feel it due myself
to correct some of the misstatements of
facts in that opinion. First, 1 find the
statement "that notwithstandingit has been
reported that there had been a disagree
ment between Judge Harris and himself in
the matter, that such had not been the case;
that there was no disagreement between
the courts'' The undoubted lfacts are, as
can be proved by any number of witnesses,
that just after Judge Harris rendered his
Judgment, giving the custody of
the child to her father. judge
Beczam entered Judge Harris court room,
while his court was in session, and gave
verbal order to the sheriff not to obey Judge
Harris order to deliver the child to her
father, but to carry her upstairs to his.
Judge Beckham's, courtroom. This looks
somewhat like a disagreement Judge
Beckham had issued no writ of habeas cor
pus or other process, but simply
gave his verbal order to annul the
Judgment and decree of the county court.
l regret 10 say, as uluCn as esteem Judge
Beckham, that this act was a gross con-
tempt of Judge Harris court sand grave,
fragrant and Unprecedented violation of law
The whole trouble has arisen out of the
in opinion of law between
the two judges. While Judge Beckham
has the right to issue writ of habeas cor
pus on his own motion, there is no law or
authority for his verbal order before the
issuance of such a writ commanding the
sheriff to disobey the order of another
court. 2. There is this other state
ment in his opinion, Judge Boykin's
plea that he was unaware of the writ of in
Junction was not sufficiently backed by
facts, as that gentleman was in the court
at the time and heard the decision, and had
taken the application himself to his Office to
prepare an answer" The undoubted, I'M
disputed fact is, that the writ of injunction
was not issued until some time after the
sheriff had proceeded in the hack, under
the written peremtory order of Judge
Harris. to deliver the child to her father.
1 certainly had no knowledge of a writ
being issued; when, in tact, none had been.
The questions of law will not discuss
will only say that have heard of but one
lawyer in Fort Worth who sustains Judge
Beckham in his views. r, j. BoTKIN.