The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1898-12-28
WARDNER TO STAY IN JAIL.
HABE1s CORPUS REFUsED IN TIE
BOSTON EDITOR,S CASE,

Judge KnowIton Refers the Matter to the
Full Bench of the Supreme Court
He Also Refuses to Accept Bail-The
History of the Case Involving Contempt.
BosroN. Mass. Dec. 27.-Judge Knowlton Of
the Supreme Court refused to-day to issue a
writ Of hnbeas corpus for tho release Of TORY
+. wardner. EDITOR OF the Boston Trdueifr. serv-
Ing a thirty days sentence in Dedham Jail for
contempt of court. The Judge. however. re-
served the matter for the consideration OF the
full bench. to whom It will DO submitted by
briefs on next Tuesday. Bail was also refused
the petitioner.
wardner was sentenced for contempt in
publishing matter commenting on the case OF
Engineer Getchell while he was on trial for
manslaughter in causing several deaths in the
railroad accident at Sharon last August. On
Dec. 20 the court. sitting at Dedham. in Nor
folk county. found Getchell guilty. On Dec. II
Mr.. Wardner was arraigned before Judge Sher-
man. who had tried the Getchell case. on the
charge OF contempt OF court. Judge sherman
said that in his opinion comments on tho
Getchell case printed in the 7raretsr would
have influenced the minds OF the jury had the
Irdreer containing the comments reached the
Court House before the case was submitted for
anal consideration. His Honor said that he
referred to an editorial article printed on Dec.
Is entitled "A Servants Responsibility" and
70 the report headed "Getchell Faces a Jury"
which appeared the day before. No other
specific articles, so far as can be learned. were
mentioned by Judge Sherman at hat time.
Or Dec. 20. the day Getchell was sentenced.
IN article on the case of an editorial nature
was printed on the first page OF the Trdrele'.
and on Dec. u. the day Mr.. Wardner appeared
before the court. an editorial article was printed.
headed The Getchell Conviction" in which
appeared the words quoted in THE SUN this
morning. These last two articles were not
mentioned by. Judge Sherman at the hearing
on Dec. II, but the Judge said at that time
that the publication of such articles as he had
"sYSoo / ! nderstand by that" Said said %r. warn:
ner, that the Judges OF the court will proceed
TO ,I sdis sh sb S9nSSn n TsrIiea tSst he o,sia.rsd
that an impairment question; The case was
continued to Dec. 23. and at that time Mr..
In passing sentence Judge sherman referred
particularly, to the article beaded A Servants
had shown any disposition to express regret
for the publications or to admit that. they were
different. Judge Sherman's charge seems to
have, been founded almost wholly upon this one
IN h5t tSe de Aibefl c reseti the EDITORIAL ID t orisI a she 9sw SAID tfe's
that Engineer Getcheii failed to attempt to
check his train until it was too late to bring 1t
to a stop and prevent the accident. To the ordi-
nary citizen it would seem that it will not be an
sponsibility Of the accident from the railroad
corporation to q servant OF the road. a thing
Of the corporation. should be done.
co Ut THs BROUGHT ont in the evidence de, that
a shifting engine in the yard at Mansfield. and
that he was put in charge OF a heavily laden
passenger train without having had much ex-
with the. road over which the train was run. It
may well be imagined that it would be impos-
sible, through inexperience and not through
any fault or neglect, for an accident, But no
responsibility in such a case and to place the
blame where 1t would belong-uron those who
intrusted to an inexperienced man such oner-
A witness who was on the engine with
Getchell testified yesterday that he saw no red
light or fuse as the train ran into Sharon sta
ton. The first intimation he had that there
was to be a collision was when the engineer re-
rear endot The first Section Of Il the t train SEE This his
witness. as well as the fireman. testified that
affect the trains speed. This renders Certain
one OF two things: either that the brakes did
P0ow wq Raw w td s or 1ast them the enf In n s5fh did os not
who Is, 70 blame? Certainly not Engineer
Se tSa dhr f9 RIB i he Nv was Is i me- pc lie in the use pss
the fault lies with the road official who allowed
to operate the train.
probable that the results Of the trial will be in |
GSstsshelI's favor. The responsibility may never
At the hearing this morning before Judge
Enowlton Mr.; Wardner was represented by his
brother, G. Philip Wardner. William Schofeld,
and Judge Hartman; The petitioners side OF
the case was summed up by Mr.. Schoield. who
commended that the Superior Court had no
jurisdiction in the matter. He said the article
complained OF was published in Suffolk county,
and that the Superior. Court was sitting In
Norfolk county. He thought. that the petit
toner should have been held in the county
where the offence was committed. He main
tanned that IL any wrong had been done, the
petitioner was entitled to a trial by jury. He
said he thought an opportunity should have
been given to the petitioner to show that the
jury could not have seen the article, inasmueh
as the case was given to II at $50, and that
the edition sent to Dedham never reached there
until APO. Counsel asserted that the jury
must have seen another article. and not the
one complained of.
For the Commonwealth Assistant District
Attorney ShultZ said that II the record set forth
sufficient ground for the finding of the Superior
Court. the petitioner was guilty OF contempt,
and the court was justified in inhicting punish
ment. The matter, he said. was one, OF iuris-
diction. He argued that the court had juris-
diction. He also referred to Mr.. Wardner's
Sefant attitude when he appeared before the