The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1894-04-24


disease.
DEFENDING his action in causing the ar
rest of lawyer Charles K. Chambers, the
Merchantyille justice has written to the
Philadelphia Inquirer The justice-his
name is Longstreth-claims that he was
guided in all he did by Honeyman's Prac-
tice, standard legal authority for this
state. He evidently errs right here from
the fact that Honeyman does not advise
such extremely arbitrary methods as
those used by Longstreth. The facts re-
lated by Mr.. Chambers-whose reputa-
ton for truthfulness has never been as
sailed in this community-are substan-
TALLY as follows Alfred W. Lofand was
arrested for larceny. which consisted of
his taking pair of horses in compliance
with the conditions of chattel mortgage;
when taken before justice the latter re-
fused to let him give bis side of the ques-
ton, but compelled him to give BAIL Mr..
Chambers then remarked on the quality
of justice dispensed, and was elected by a
constable upon the order of the squire.
The whole case rests upon the arrest of
Mr.. Lofand. That he was entirely guilt
less must be clear to even an ordinary
mind. The paper in his possession gave
him the privilege of taking the horses.
and the man from whom he took them
admitted, on the witness stand, before
Longstreth, that he knew this. That
should have been sufficient for any fair
minded man, but the justice insisted on
holding Mr. Lofland to bail, and refused
to let him make a statement. Honeyman
says on this point that justice is not
compelled to hear defence, but that Eek
culpatory testimony, if at hand and Of
fered. ought not to be rejected;" and he
also says "If a justice believes that crime
is not proven he should hesitate about
committing person against whom a
charge has been preferred" Instead of
trying to put the responsibility upon
Honeyman, Justice Longstreth should ex-
plain how, in the face of the terms of the
chattel mortgage, and the admission of
the mortgage that he was aware of those
terms, he could commit Mr.. Lofland for
larceny. Now. for Mr.. Chambers share
in the affair. If he was abusive, if he
showed contempt for the official, the lat
ter had his redress, which, according to
the same Honeyman on which he relies,
was not to punish him or eject him from
his Office. but TO hold him to answer for
the offense. A justice cannot punish for
contempt in bis own court, but may put
did not do this. however, nor did he re-
quest the lawyer to leave the judicial pres
ence. On the contrary, without word of
warning, he ordered constable to eject
him, and there is grave question
whether the officer the moment he
put his hands upon the lawyer did not
himself become amenable for assault and
battery. That point will probably be set
tied before this case ends.
Continuing his evident intention to
get square," the justice sent Mr.. Cham
bers direct to Jail. without giving him an
opportunity to secure bail, which was
fixed at 81, 600, out of all proportion to the
alleged offence, and in direct violation of
the constitution of the United States and
of the state of New Jersey, which assert
that excessive bail shall not be required
Justices in this vicinity with as much, if
not more, legal lore than the Merchant
vile Dogberry, think that 5000 is very
heavy. Instead of being guided by
Honeyman. Justice Longstreth appears to
have gone exactly contrary to the legal
precepts laid down by that authority
where it says whatever a justice deter
mines should rest on his sound discretion,
should be impartial and without favor"
Mr.. Chambers should give the squire and
the constable every opportunity to secure
legal vindication of their actions. If they
were right they should be given proper
credit; if wrong, they should be made to
suffer.