Evening star., 1894-11-03
THE COURT WITHOUT JURISDICTION
But Judge Bingham Sends the Case
to the District Attorney.
A LIVELY TIME IN COURT

tFlct attorney 10 TAKE SUCH uCtiOh 90 hS
might deem proper and necessary.
Mr.. Heiskell was cited for contempt for
an alleged attempt to influence Jurors Hale
and O'Bryon in the trial of the suit brought
against him By the administrator Of the
estate of the late James l.. Barbour. which
resulted in a disagreement last Saturday.
Afidavits were filed in court on Monday.
The court room was crowded by mem
bers of the bar and the public when
the case was called up this morning. Mr..
Perry stated that Mr.. Heiskell was in court
ready to answer fully, and Mr.. Perry then
handed the court affidavits made by Mr..
and Mrs. Heiskell. and asked that they be
read.
The Judges Decision.
Chief Justice Bingham, however, declined
to allow them to be read, and then went on
to explain that since granting the rule he
had reached the conclusion that his court
was without Jurisdiction in the matter.
Therefore, he said. the sooner the proceed
ings were stopped In court the better. 1t
seemed that until 1891 it had been COM
petent for the court TO proceed in such a
case, but In that year law was passed
which provided that no attachment for con-
tempt should issue unless the act was COM
mitted in the presence of the court, or so
ton of justice. The second section of the
act provided that an attempt to obstruct or
impede the course OF justice should be an
indictable matter, and provided a punish
prisonment for not more than three
months or both. The question in the pres
ent, said the court, was, therefore, what
was meant by the term near to the court"
Courts, in constituting the term, had differed,
and 1t seemed that Congress had, in pass
ing the law of 1881, endeavored to draw the
line, that 1t might clearly appear just where
and how far the jurisdiction of the court
to punish for contempt extended. and In
what cases indictments should be had
He had. said Chief Justice Bingham, ex-
amined the authorities in such cases and
had concluded that the affidavits made by
Jurors O'Bryon and Hale disclosed mat
tiers which 1t was proper to certify to the
district attorney for action by the grand
jury. ,.,;.s..
.s-,---. - MR. sRoRry's Statement.
IT make no point OF Jurisdiction" exclaim-
ed MIR. Perry. land / wish ii understo ID
that my client expressly valves any point
of jurisdiction
Mr. Tracy L. Jeffords, representing the
district attorney, announced to the court
that Mr.. Birney had directed him to say
that he wished Mr.. Garnett to speak for
him on the question of Jurisdiction.
II ask" said Mr.. Perry that that be
VS.. Heiskell."
THAT case is not before the court now.
Mr.. Perry" replied Chief Justice Bingham.
Mr. Perry then remarked that Mr.. Heis-
keli had made answer by filing affidavits
made by himself and wife, and he hoped
that the public press would give them the
same extended publicity it had given the
afiidavits of Jurors O'Bryon and Hale.
To that the court replied that 1t had no
power over the press, and could not dictate
WI at 1t should or should not do.
Mr.. Perry then stated that Mr.. Heiskell
had, by his advice, refused to open his lips,
but now had fully answered the charges
made against him. Mr.. Heiskell, explained
Mr.. Perry, was entirely innocent of any
wrongdoing, as was Mrs. Heiskell, and he
hoped that fact would be made known. He
then went on to severely criticise the ac-
tlons Of Jurors O'Bryon and Hale in sub
mitting their charges, when he was inter-
rupted by Mr.. Garnett, who explained that
he alone was responsible for the matter
being brought to the attention Of the court.
sThe Jurors Criticised.
Mr.. Perry dlsclaimed any purpose to re-
fleet upon Mr.. GarEett's course in the mat
ter, but remarked that neither Mr.. Heiskell
nor his wife could have known who would
be called as jurors in the case at the time
they were alleged to have acted improp-
erly.
Mr.. Perry was proceeding to discuss that
question when the court remarked that his
discussion related not to the question of the
courts Jurisdiction but as to the effect of
the affidavit3 filed by the two jurors upon
public opinion The only question before
the court, explained Chief Justice Bing
ham, was that Of jurisdiction. The acts Of
the two jurors were not proper to be now
discussed, he said, nor was 1t now neces-
sary to act on any matter but the one be-
fore the court
Mr.. Perry went on to say that when
Juror O'Bryon recognized Mr.. Heiskell in
oln 1ad Mrs IoiS
kell, they must have realized that they
were incompetent to sit in the case, If they
honestly believed that Mr.. Heiskell and his
wife had been base enough to really at
tempt to tamper with them. So, said Mr.
Perry. when those jurors remained silent,
he might as well have addressed men Of
stone, so far as the interests of his client
were concerned, and he had no doubt that
when the jury retired they informed their
brother jurymen of everything, and in that
way improperly influenced them.
Prefer Charges in Writing.
While proceeding in that line Mr.. Perry
was again interrupted by the court. who
held that his remarks were improper.
Il hope, your HONOR pleaded Mr.. Perry
that you will appreciate my position.
am only doing what 1 feel is right and
proper
II do, Mr. Perry" replied the court, ''but
you can bring the matter properly before
the court without speech. Any sugges-
ton which You wish to make the court will
promptly consider
Mr.. Perry then stated that, believing that
Jurors O'Bryon and Hale had acted i'm
properly In sitting In the case, he would
place the matter before the court In writ
ing at the earliest practicable moment.
Chief Justice Bingham then officially
called the attention Of Assistant Dis
trict Attorney Jeffords to the law in con-
nection with the afiidavits filed by Jurors
O'Bryon and Hale for such action as the
district attorney might consider necessary
and proper. The proceedings under the
rule were then formally ordered dismissed
by the court for want of jurisdiction.
Mr. Jeffords stated that District Attorney
Birney was absent from the city, but would
return in a few days, when the matter
would be laid before him.
The Afida Wits.
In his affidavit filed today Mr.. Heiskell
states that he neither did nor attempted to
Improperly influence Juror O'Bryon. Not
until he saw; him in the jury box did he rec
ognize him as man on whom he had
previously called. That call, he states, was