The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-05-13
A SPARRlNG FOR TIME
DEFENDANTS IN THE NEWS CASE
STILL OPPOSING THE SALE.
Argument on Major Rfchnrds's Petit
ton Before Judge McMaster
Other Court News.

Questions affecting the proposed sale of
the Indianapolis News plant were discussed
before Judge McMaster in Room I, Superior
Court. yesterday afternoon. The court
heard argument from Charles w. Smith,
representing Major W. J. Richards, the
plaintiff in the News litigation, and Ferd-
inand Winter, who represents Charles r.
Williams and Delavan Smith, the defend
ants. The chief question involved was
whether the court should order the plant
sold in accordance with it's former decree.
Judge McMaster gave no decision and said
he would consider the matter.
On Thursday a petition was filed by the
plaintiffs attorneys requesting the court TO
authorize the receiver to proceed with the
sale Of the newspaper establishment. The
attorneys came into court yesterday after
noon prepared to argue the matter. The
plaintiffs counsel filed an affidavit setting
out information that the Supreme Court had
dismissed the appeal Of the defendants. The
affidavit further averred that Williams and
Smith had accepted s25,0o o as their share
Of profits from the business of the news
paper after they had appealed from the de-
cree of the lower court. 1t was the accept
ance of benefits under the decree that
caused the Supreme Court to dismiss the
oPlCdl u IL 0ClCAudnlS. AtLOIHtJ - W..
Smith, in support of the petition filed on
Thursday, held that Williams and Smith
had no further case in the Supreme Court
and that the litigation stood as if there had
never been an appeal. 1t appeared to him
that there was nothing to prevent the Su-
perior Court from authorizing the receiver
to go ahead with the sale according to the
terms of the original decree.
The contention of Ferdinand Winter was
that Judge McMaster could not order the
paper sold at this time. He held that the
litigation is still pending in the Supreme
Court and will be until that body has Off
cially notified the lower court of its de-
cision. Until this is done, the attorney as
serted. Judge McMaster can take no step
toward disposing of the property. Mr..
Winter insisted that a mere affidavit show
ing the lower court what the higher court
had done was not sufficient. One court can
not. speak to another officially without its
seal. he asserted. MIR. Winter further as
serted that under the law the defendants
had a right to file a petition in the Su-
preme Court for a rehearing and they could
do this any time within sixty days after
the court had given its decision. Mr.. Smith
did not agree with Mr.. Winter on this point.
He held and declared that Judge Elliott
was with him on the proposition that the
defendants could not file a petition for a re-
hearing until they had first had their case
reinstated in the Supreme Court. They
Il iulSl pEtStnl IL uOllOn dShlUS IOT d Teln-
statement of the cause and give the plain
tif due notice that such a motion is to be
filed. Mr.. Winter scoffed at this PROPOSE
the Indiana statutes in support of his con-
tention that Ii would not be necessary to
have the case reinstated in order TO ask
attorney Is TO the effect that where a case
has been judicially determined by the SUI
has a right TO file a petition for a rehearing
} and until a period of sixty days has ex-
pired the case is still pending In the Su-
preme Court, unless the party having the
right to file a petition for a rehearing
valves that right.
Mr.. Smith held that in this case the lower
court had a right to act any time after the
Judgment of the Supreme Court was an
nounced and need not wait until the decree
Of that court was certified down. Mr..
Smiths Interpretation of the statute re-
ferred TO by Mr.. Winter was that the case
would first have to be reinstated before a
rehearing could be asked. He asserted that
Major Richards could have come into the
Superior Court several months ago with a
request that the receiver be ordered to pro-
to the Supreme Court. The attorney be-
lieved Judge McMaster would have instruct
ed the receiver to proceed In view OF the
benefits under the decree they had appealed
from.
An attorney who Is familiar with the
| News litigation remarked yesterday that 1t
was apparent that the defendants were
merely 'sparring for time" In his opinion
IL Is Inelr plan 10 put OH Une safe ol the
property as long as possible. Because"
he added. they have got a good thing and
want to hold to Ii as long as possible The
attorney thought he could "siZe up" the
situation accurately. He remarked the fact
that the Supreme Court will adjourn in
June until the September term. He thought
that in the event Judge McMaster decides
in favor of the defendants their attorney
would file his petition for a rehearing after
the Supreme Court has adjourned and of
| course 1t could not be passed on before
September. Then after the petition has
been disposed of a period of eight weeks
must elapse before the sale may be made.
In the meantime Major Richards will be
| sharing profits with Charles X. Williams
and Delavan Smith.
According TO the original decree of the
lower court the advertisement announcing
that the paper is to be sold must be pub
| lished twice q week each alternate week
for a period of eight weeks. The publica-
/ tions must be made on Wednesdays and
Saturdays and the sale will AXE place. on
| the Wednesday following the last publica-
| ton on Saturday.