The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-02-16
of the Famous Contempt
Case at Waco,

Proceedings of the Famous Contempt
Case ut Waco.
Waco, Texas. February l5.--When Judge
Surratts court was convened this morning
the court room was filled with curious cit
liens anxious to hear tho proceedings of
the contempt case against Sheriff NJ. f.
Lake of pawnee county, o. 4. Sheriff
Lake was In court with his attorneys. Tay-
Tor & Williams The court appointed Baker
g. Boynton to represent the court.
Judge surratt then stated the case sub
stantially as follows:
Some time last week Sheriff Lake ar
rested j. Il. Edwards. a citizen of Nc
Lehman county, Texas, on u warrant issued
by Governor Culberson, said warrant being
based upon an indictment in Pawnea couu-
ty, Oklahoma Territory, charging Edwards
with assault with intent to murder one
luoCs that the said executive warrant
upon habeas corpus examination was found
to be defective and that said defendant
was released that Sheriff Lake Immediate
ly made complaint before Justice of the
peace, charging Edwards with being Il
fugitive from justice and procured the ar
rest Of Edwards upon Justices warrant
and his examination was fixed for Monday,
February Is. In the meantime application
was made for an amended warrant from
the governor and pending the return OF
said warrant an application was made In
his tSurratt's) court for writ OF habeas
ccirus. which application was read by tho
court. who. In response, stated verbally
that the writ would be granted temporarily
for the purpose of investigation, wherenpon
argument was begun by counsel as TO the
jurisdiction OF the court in tho case. Up
10 this time Defendan. Lake was present In
1.. l.
the discussion Defendant Lake left the
court room and went to tho sheriff's office;
that being advised by Edwards counsel
that preparations were being made by
Sheriff Lake and his friends to spirit Ed
wards away, the court telcphoned the
sheriff's office and conversed with Lake |
asking him to return to his court at once 4. |
that observing that the request was not
complied with the court sent a deputy |
sheriff after Lake; that the deputy sheriff |
returned with the information that Sheriff |
Lake had received tho new warrant from |
the governor and had procured the custody |
of Defendant Edwards and had gone |
with him.
Under these circumstances the court en-
tered judgment Iisi against said Lake |
lining him 500 and three days imprIson.
ment in the county jail for contempt and |
mad issued a warrant for his arrest, COM
his delivery TO the court to show
cause why the Judgment should not be
made final.
Joe W. Taylor. for the defendant. read
his answer. which covered the points pre-
sented In the habeas corpus examination
md which were incorporated In the report
rom Waco In Sundays Post, namely, that
no lrdcr or mandate had been Issued from
Judge surratt's court restraining him from
bis prisoner; that defendant had
no knowledge of the existence Of any re-
'training order. ana that defendant had no
OF offending the court or treat
lhe court with dlsrespect or contempt.
Counsel in presenting his argument cited
he cAse OF the contempt proceedings
against the grand jury in Bexar county,
who were fined by Judge King for contempt
because summons to appear before the
grand jury was served on the Judge while
holding court. The court OF appeals de-
,ided that the court had no Jurisdiction be-
cause the grand Jury was acting under In
dependent authority under an independent
Ind separate law. Counsel held that Sheriff
Lake wss acting under the authority Of
he governor and under law which com
nands the agent OF another State to re-
move criminal and commands the sheriff
% which II Is directed and all other off,
,ers TO ad said agent In carrying out the
,rders OF the governor
Mr.. J. r. Boynton addressed the court
md was followed by Hon. Waller S. Baker.
Who declared that the case was not one OF
contempt Ms was involved In
he San Antonio case. but was one NJ di.
'ect contempt; that the defenElnt delib-
,rately tricked the court while his right TO
eInove his prisoner was under consrfera-
inn and In answer TO u personal
luminous to appear before the court de-
endsnt seized his prisoner and spirited him
ut OF the county.
The argument in the case consumed the
lay. and the court. having decided that he
,ad Jurisdiction, the taking OF evidence
vas commenced. but did not proceed far
NTH adjournment was ordered until to-