The San Francisco call., 1899-06-21
DA|NGERF|ELD
MULC7EO COOK
FOR CON TEMPT
Justice Ignored Writ
of Prohibition.
DEFIED SUPERIOR COURT
He SET ASIDE A JUDGMENT
WITHOUT WARRANT.
Changed the Official Record of a Case
il Defiance of Il Peremptory
Order Of the Higher
TRIBUNAL.

Justice of the Peace G. F. W. Cook
was held to be In contempt Of court by
Superior Judge Daingerfeld yesterday for
ignoring a writ of prohibition issued by
the latter on the Sth of April in the case
OF D. A. Curtin VS.. Marie Cassou ct al,
wherein Cook was ordered not to carry
cut his declared intention to set aside
Judgment in favor of the plaintiff which
had been taken in his court by default
on March II last. The plea of the Justice
that he had not been served with the writ
until two days after the order setting
aside the judgment had been made was
evidently not believed by the court, and
the weight of the evidence was against
such a conclusion. The Judge also rem
dered decision on the matter which
called for the issuance of the writ Of
prohibition, which is in effect that the
original Judgment against the defendant
stands as originally entered.
Briefly the facts of the case are as fol-
lows: D. A Curtin sued Marie Cassou
and Joseph Cassou, her husband, in JUS
tice Cooks court on a note for $500 ex-
ecuted by the woman before her mar
rtage. together with interest and costs.
Judgment was entered by default for
5000 80, with interest and costs amounting
the community property of the two de-
PENDANTS. and the Sheriff of Alameda
County attached the bakery operated by
days allowed by law had expired, P. A.
Bergerot and Moses G. Cobb. attorneys
for the Gaseous, appeared before Justice nee
proceedings be changed so that 1t would
appear that the Judgment was o1I against
nounced his intention to comply with the
request stating that he had been imposed
upon when signing the Judgment and
ordered the attachment Withdrawn at
once.
While the matter was being argued Mr..
Curtin secured writ Of prohibition from
Cook at 1870 O'Clock, on the, morning of
April 8. before he had made his order
correcting the minutes. The writ was
ignored. as was also an order issued by
transferring the case to his court. and
Cook proceeded to make an order chang
he had signed nearly month previous
by striking out all reference to Joseph
Cassou.
For this arbitrary proceeding Cook was
cited before Judge Daingerfleld for con-
tempt, and the hearing was concluded
yesterday. Cook went on the stand and
writ until April 10. when copy OF the
document was handed to him by a young
man whom he did not know in the Jus
had a right to change the minutes in the
case because he had been deceived and
sqpp2sed when he signed the du{anGent tudgment
that it was against the woman alone,
P. NJ. McGaslin. "a deputv IN the once
OF the county clerk. CeStlleu Indt udu
served the writ on Justice of the Peace
Cook at 1880 o'clock on the morning of
April s. He had inadvertently left the
original as we'll as the copy in the court
room, and when he returned for 1t a
short time later he found Cook In MS
chambers. Upon asking the latter for the
isn't It there on the table?"
Chief Deputy Goddard of the County
Clerks office told of sending McGaslin to
serve the writ and that when he returned
he advised him to make note of the SER
vice and of the time. which was done.
Attorney Bergerot testified that McGas-
a paper on the table. After he left he;
Bergerot picked up the document and
saw it was a writ Of prohibition. He was
positive it had not been served upon the
Cook was recalled to the stand and de-
MED emphaticallv that he had acknowl-
edged receiving the writ at any time be-
fore the 10th of April or that any such
conversation as related by McGaslin had
taken place in his chambers.
Mr. Curtin took the stand and related
noint of view. AS he left the stand Judge
Daingerfield announced that he was ready
to testify as a witness If so desired by
either side. He then stated that he had
room on the morning in question. Mr.
Bergerot was standing at the bar in the
act of addressing the court and Cook
made some remark about being imposed
unon. That was the extent Of Judge
DaingerfieId's testimony as. while he said
he knew there were others present in
the courtroom at the time, he could not
The case was briefly argued by Attor-
rev Cobb for Justice Cook and Attorney
W. NJ. Cannon on behalf of Curtin. The
latter said he did not ask that severe
punishment be inflicted unon the Justice
for his alleged contempt, but only that
Justice be done to his client.
Judge Daingerfield in announcing his
decision in the matter said 1t was clear
to his mind that the writ had been zen served ryed
charged, on the Sth Of April and not on
the 10th of April. He therefore held that
Cook was in contempt of court. but in
view of the fact that he appeared to have
acted or to have been influenced in MS
action bv what he believed to be "a short
cut to justice" and in view of the request
of the opposing counsel that. minimum
n1nishment be inflicted. in which he con-
Cured he would impose nominal fine OF
In the matter of the remedy, applied
for in the writ of prohibition the court
held that the Judgment should stand as
before the unlawful modification OF the
Judgment by the istice.