The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-03-24
DOES NOT CONCERN HIM
THEREFORE, JUDGE CHAMBERS DIS
Kisses CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS.
Messrs. wiItsie. Payne and ROyse Dis
charged from the Rule-The Courts
Peculiar Decision.

Special Judge Smiley y. Chambers yester-
day sustained the motion 10 quash the
Information on which the contempt proceed
ings against Prosecuting Attorney Charles
S. Wiltsie. Gavin l.. Payne and Walter n.
RoySe of the Journal. was based. but based
his ruling on a point that was not before
the court. The record shows that the de-
PENDANTS entered special appearances and
that hey took exception to the right of
the special judge to hear the cause, on
account OF the alleged illegality of his APP
pointment. The entering of a special APP
p~earance brings the defendants before the
court only on the question involved in the
motion to quash on account OF lack of ju-
risdiction.
Judge hambe sustained the motion to
quash, the entire point of which motion
was that he had no jurisdiction. as special
judge. and in the next breath held that he
had jurisdiction 10 pass upon a change of
venue in the Ludwig case as spe-
cial judge. In sustaining the mo-
ton to quash. for want of jurisdiction
as special judge, he ordered the discharge
and setting aside of the rule TO show
cause and released each of the defendants
Messrs. Wiltsie, Payne and Royse. The
" liz 1AAA'NN ~ tAC
popularity of the decision. Ii seemed TO
the attorneys chat If he had jurisdiction as
special judge in the Ludwig case. even only
to the extent of venuing the case, he GER
tainly had jurisdiction L try an alleged
contempt case growing out of the fixing of
the bond by him in the Ludwig case. His
ruling was directly on the proposition by
the defense that he had no jurisdiction. This
question. indeed. was the only one raised.
The defense had filed 10 preliminary mo-
ton questioning the efficiency of the af-
fidavit and information, as the judge antici-
pated in his decision which released the de-
PENDANTS.
Judge Chambers said, in his ruling, that
he was satisfied that he had jurisdiction.
He made a ruling that covers the point
in both the contempt cases and the Ludwig
cases, in which he said:
The question has been raised as to the
power or this court to pass upon the motion
Tor q change of venue, also 10 sit as spe-
cial judge in the Ludwig cases and 10 try
the contempt proceedings which were
brought before this court. III the question
raised was simply in regard TO the power
OF the court TO appoint a special Judge with
out a motion having been filed asking for
a change OF venue, the court would not
hesitate in deciding that the appointment
was perfectly legal. In the 9th Indiana,
Page 554. the Supreme Court holds that II
is not necessary that a motion asking for
a change of venue be filed. 1t is discretion
airy with the court, and If the court feels
that for any reason he is not qualified TO
try the cause he has the right to appoint
a special Judge"
In the case cited by Judge Chambers to
sustain his position Ghe 9th Ind.) the coun-
| gested the impropriety of the judge sitting
: case ipvolVins the same cues;
to pass upon as judge in the cause then
before him. and the party objected to him
presiding. This was a civil cause. No such
| objection as this was raised in the IIr6Ngip
case: Judge McCray sitting in the cause.
In fact. Judge .McCray. of his own mo-
the exceptions of both the State and the
defense. How this case in 9th In
diana applied to the cause before Judge
Chambers was not apparent. Judge Cham
| berS continued:
The court also holds that his appoint
ment as special judge was not limited 10
the one cause before this court. 1t is
well known by the reading people of this
State that the regular Judge of this court
this defendant. and upon that evidence dis
charged the defendant. For this the court
was severely, extensively and unjUstly criti-
cised by the press of this city. This was
sufficient justification for the appointment
of a special judge, and l hold it greatly
TO his credit that he declined to serve
that it has jurisdiction in these cases, will
receive the motion for q change of venue
out of the county and will pass upon it at
Z o'clock this afternoon"
| Judge McCray never stated any such JUS
tiication as this cited by Judge Chambers.
There was no intimation by Judge McCray
either in open court or as shown by mis- @p-
pointment of record, that any such JUS
LITIGATION was contemplated by him. He
declined TO sit because of pressing personal
engagements
In further ruling on the contempt cases.
Judge Chambers said that if the question
before the court depended wholly on the
question or his jurisdiction he would over
rule the motion TO quash. The attorneys
claim that there was no question before
the court except jurisdiction. The Judge
then went on to say that inasmuch as the
alleged contempt was wholly directed to-
cray, he felt 1t was 4 case for the regular
Judge to consider and he would. therefore
sustain the motion to quash and let what
ever proceedings there might be come be-
fore Judge McCray.
This point was at no time raised by the
defense in any preliminary motion filed.
The only ground on which they asked him
TO quash was that he had no jurisdiction
as special judge.
Prosecutor Wiltsie took exceptions to the
rulings of the court. He said that the APP
pointment of Smiley n. Chambers was with
jurisdiction upon him as a judge, and that
itigants in any criminal cause could not
create a court. He objected. for that real
SON., to allowing Judge chamber to pass
on the application for a change of venue.
The State also objected on the grounds
Chambers the court had appointed JOIN G.
RuckselshauS as Judge pro tenn. and that
the latter appointment superseded the first
one. On March % the regular acting Judge,
McCray, took the bench.
In the afternoon Judge Chambers sus-
tanned the motion for a change of venue i'm
the Ludwig case and sent it to Hendricks
county for trial. The State again excepted,