The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-03-17
CITED FOR CONTEMPT
& NEW TURN Is IN THE GRIM
NAL COURT AFFAIRS.
Prosecutor NiItsie and Two of the
Journals Staf Taken to Task for
Ludwig Case Reports.

Yesterday afternoon w. r. Fishback
walke into the Criminal Court and asked
for a rule of court citing Charles 5. Wilt
sic, prosecuting attorney of the Marion
Criminal Court: Gavin l.. Payne. city editor
of the indianapolis Journal. and Walter y.
Royse, court reporter of the journal, 10
appear in court and show cause why they
should not be punished for contempt of
court. The application for this rule was
not altogether a surprise, for it was known
that some such action was contemplated.
but the exact nature of the course to be
pursued was not known.
The cause of the action is found in an ar
ticle that appeared in the Journal Sunday
morning. March Z. under the headlines
The Scandal Growing-Further Develop
ments in McCray's Treatment of Ludwig
The Bond Reduced for the Pawnbroker-
Smiley N. Appointed Special
Judge over Protest. This article was a
detailed statement of the proceedings in
court the day before, in which the attor-
neys for Charles c.. Ludwig. indicted four
times for stealing stolen goods. succeed
ed in getting his bond reduced three
fourths. The article set out the fact that
Ludwig had been indicted and tried before
and acquitted by Judge McCray on a sim
liar charge to that contained in the last
four indictments. 1t also gave a short
resume of the evidence that was brought
out in the trial of Ludwig. 1t then went on
to give the details of the proceedings be-
fore Special Judge Smiley n. Chambers. in
which Prosecuting Attorney Wiltsie object
ed 10 the appointment being made and
objected to any action being taken by Mr..
on the question of the reduction
of the bond.
The article also detailed a little argument
over the question of furnishing the attor-
neys for Ludwig a copy of the four indict-
ments against him. which contained as
well the names of others who were indicted
and not at that time under arrest. Mr..
Wiltsie opposed giving these copies, and
said it would thwart the ends of justice to
do so. Mr.. Wiltsie claimed that this would
give information that would allow other
ordered given to the defendants attorneys.
JUDGE MCRAY'S APPOINTMENT.
The affidavit on which the rule citing for
contempt is based sets out the facts of the
returning of the indictments against Lud-
wig, his arrest and the fact that the cause
is now pending in the Criminal Court. 1t
then continues:
That on the 9Th day of March. 1897. the
Hon. Frank McCray, the regular Judge OF
the said Criminal Court OF Marion county,
before whom said causes were pending, be-
ing unable to attend and preside as Judge,
duly appointed in writing the Hon. Smiley
N. hamber an attorney eligible to the
office OF such judge, TO be the special judge
for such causes in said court. And the
pointment and took the oath required by
law. And the said appointment, accept
ance and oath were duly entered of rec
ord upon the records of said court. And
fhnPnttnnn tho cold Srriarv Ibanahar1.
assumed the bench and took and had the
same power and authority over said causes
and all proceedings therein as a regularly
elected judge of said court. And that said
causes continued to be and are still pending
before said Smiley n. Chambers as special
Judge having Jurisdiction of said causes
The next paragraph is devoted to the
charge that the article i'm question was pub
lished in the Journal on Sunday, March Z,
and that the article is libelous and false.
Then follows a cop of the article. The af-
1davit then continues:
That by the names Ludwig and Charles
Ludwig in the said publication, the said
defendants meant and intended the said
Charles G.. Ludwig, the defendant in. said
four causes.
said publication. the defendants meant and
intended the said Criminal court of Marion
county, State of Indiana.
That by the name Ludwig case used In
said publication. the defendants meant and
intended the said four causes pending in
said court.
That by the name Judge McCray' in
said publication, the defendants meant and
intended the regular judge of said Criminal
Court of Marion county before whom said
causes were pending
and Mr.. Chambers in said publication.
the said defendants meant and intended the
special judge before whom said four cases
are now pending.
THAT the matters and things stated in
said publication so far as the same refers
to the proceedings of said court. were and
- - Il 49, -l H.
the necessary effect of said publication has
been, is and will be to prejudice the people
OF said county against the said court and to
embarrass II in the administration of JUS
tice and to impair the dignity and respect
to which the said court is entitled; and
especially to prejudice the public as TO the
merits of the said four causes then pending
in said court and to injure and prejudice
the subsequent proceedings in said causes;
and to wrongfully arouse hostility. i'll will
and prejudice in the minds of the public
against the defendant in said causes and
to w~rongfully influence the judge before
whom said causes were and are pending so
as to prevent the said defendant from hav-
ing a fair and impartial trail in said county
upon the merits of said four causes"
This affidavit was read in open court by
Mr.. Fishback and Special Judge Chambers
Prosecuting Attorney Afford made
objections to the issue of the rule on
technical legal grounds, but finally Judge
m decided to issue 1t and did SO.
The court made the order returnable at 2
o'clock tomorrow afternoon. when the
question of the contempt of the three de-
PENDANTS will be argued.
When Mr.. Fishback filed the motion for
the rule he asked that the order of court
be made returnable at 9 o'clock this morn
ing. Mr.. Wiltsie and Mr.. Afford. both of
whom were present. entered very serious
to this. They said ii would give
the defendants no time in which to pre-
pare to present their side of the case.
Their vigorous protest caused the hearing
to be set for tomorrow. During the ak
following the reading of the affidavit. Mr..
Fishback announced that he intended to
the county in the four cases now pending
against Ludwig. This motion will probably