Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-10-07
JUDGE KlLGoRE's CASE
It May Come Before the United States
Supreme Court
Petition Filed fer u Writ of Habens
Corpus by Counsel for the Men
Now In Contempt.

The case of Judge kilgore of Oklahoma
is likely to be brought to the attention of the
United States Supreme Court. A petition has
been sent to the clerk of the court, for
presentation to the court when next 1t
meets, for leave to file a motion for a writ
of habeas CORPUS for the release of W. H.
Featherstone and J. s. Addington now in
the custody of Marshal Stow of Okla
homa, by order of Judge KIlgore for con-
tempt of court. The petition is signed by
w. o. Davis, as attorney. That gentleman
has also filed charges against the Texas
jurist with the Attorney General for in
efficiency and maladministratlon, and they
are in process of investigation.
The Alleged, Contempt.
The alleged contempt Of court, for which
Messrs. Featherstone and Addington were
placed in custody, was committed during
the hearing of the cause of the Armour
Banking Company against J. P. Addington
in Judge Kilgores court. According to
their petition to the Supreme Court the
Armour Brothers Banking Company, as
judgment creditor of J. p. Addington,
brought suit in June last for the appoint
ment of a receiver of a quantity of live
stock; that the receiver was appointed as
asked for; that ]. s.. Addington made an
Swer to the complaint that the property
was his own, subject to a mortgage held
by W. H. Featherstone; that they endeav-
ored to secure the vacation of said re-
ceivership. in which effort occurred the
matter leading to their confinement.
Action Of the Master In Chnncery.
The petition recites In detail the proceed
fngs having that elimination from which
it appears that the judge referred the case
to Edward Hobby, whom he appointed
master in chancery for that purpose, and
announced that he would grant no relief
to either party except upon the advice and
recommendation of said chancellor. Ac-
cording to the petittont the chancellor said
he could not properly advise the Judge on
the answer and af1davits filed by the Pc
titioners, but that they must produce their
witnesses before him to bA examined viva
voce. The petitioners held, that the mas
ter had no Jurisdiction over the case, and
they requested q hearing by the judge
In the meantime the master filed his re-
port and asked for extra compensation.
Judge kilgore subsequently agreed to hear
the cause, but soon after repented Of such
agreement, and in the absence Of the pet,-
TONERS allowed the master 1850, and de-
creed that they should not be given any
relief until the money was f,aid by them
Upon their refusal to pay the master. the
petitioners were adjudged in contempt and
were remanded to the custody Of the mar
shall
The Judges Action Criticised.
The petition concludes as follows:
"Your petitioners further aHege that their
advisers believe that said Edwin Hobby had
no jurisdiction in said cause, for it had never
been referred to him, Or even reached that
stage where 1t could be lawfully referred,
and the said Hobby was a mere usurper and
a person who stood in the way and obstruct-
ed the passage to the court house; that by
parleying with one who wrongfully OBJ
structs the way to the court, as did Edwin
Hobby, they incurred no legal liability, and
made no. contract, express or implied to
pay the obstructor for his time and if 60
the remedy is by suit to recover the debt
and the judge at the chambers cannot ar
bitrarily. without notice and In the absence
of the parties, audit the claim and imprison
order directing them to pay Hobby $3.50 was
made without authority, and Ia illegal and
void and cannot be made the basis Of pro-
ceedings against your petitioners for con-
tempt; that TO first take their property from
them without notice, and next require them
to pay $3.50. which they did not owe, as the
price of hearing, is not due process of law,
and said order, therefore, Is null and void
that before they can be imprisoned for al
legged contempt, written mittimus should
issue, directed to the marshal naming and
specifying the charge and reciting the par
in this case; that the questions of law aris-
Ing from a complaint and answer as to
whether receivership should be vacated
or retained is for the decision of the judge,
and for his lahors in reaching conclusion
he is paid salary, and that If the Judge
needs or requires advice from any other
source it is his duty to pay for the same out
Of his salary and not make 1t tax upon
the litigants. and the attempt to do SO, as in
this case, is Illegal and Void.''