The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-06-09
william w. Ireland and william REFS
ter, of Evansville, In Contempt
of Supreme CoUrt.
THE CHARGES ARE SERIOUS
ATTORNEYS ACCUSED OF TAMPER-
ING WITH COURTS DIGNITY,
And still More Serious Matters Must
Be ExpIained-A Statement
of the Case.

Attorney General Taylor. acting under
the order of the Supreme Court, yesterday
filed an information in that court which
will probably be the means of bringing
serious trouble to two prominent attorneys
Of Evansville. The attorneys are William
w. Ireland and William Reister, and by
the order of the Supreme Court they are
directed TO appear and show cause why
their authority to practice as attorneys of
that court shall not be revoked, and why
they should not be further proceeded
against for contempt of court.
ireland and Reister who are prominent
attorneys practicing law in the city of
Evansville, represented John w. ]. Harris
in criminal case. Harris was convicted
in the lower court and an appeal was taken
by his attorneys to the Supreme Court The
attorney general in reviewing the transcript
filed by Ireland and Reister discovered that
il contained no motion in arrest of judg-
ment.' a necessary entry in the transcript
for the proper presentation of the grounds
relied upon to sustain the appeal. When
the case came up for hearing before the
Supreme Court the absence of the motion
in arrest of Judgment was called to the
attention of the court in the brief of the
attorney general, and the transcript being
in the possession of the court and 1t ap-
pearing that there was no motion in arrest
of judgment the court affirmed the decision
of the lower court. holding in substance
that the points relied upon to successfully
sustain the appeal had not been properly
presented. In rendering a judgment in the
case the court specifically stated that "a
written motion in arrest of judgment and
the ruling thereon are contained in what
purports to be a bill of exceptions, bur no
motion is set forth in any other part of the
transcript
OBJECTIONABLE ACTION.
1t is said that the attorneys for the de-
PENDANT. Ireland and Reister. Immediately
after the ruling of the court withdrew the
transcript taking it to their home in Evans
vile. On the 18th of April Ireland and
Reister filed in the Supreme Court a petit
ton for a rehearing and also brief of the
case in which they stated posi-
lively that the motion in ar
rest of judgment had appeared
in the transcript, thereby, 10 use
the language of the court, 'impugning the
veracity of the court and treating the
courts opinion contemptuously.''
To the surprise of the court, the attorney
general and everyone else concerned. when
the transcript was examined again after
having been relied with the petition for re-
hearing, the motion in arrest of Judgment
was found incorporated as Page TO- of
the transcript and from a casual inspection
appeared as though it had always been a
part of the transcript.
A closer examination. however. revealed
that the page containing the motion in
arrest of Judgment had been slipped into
the transcript by means of cutting notches
in the ends of the sheet, thus allowing it
to slip up over the wires fastening the
pages together. 1t also appeared that the
paper on which the motion in arrest of
judgment had been typewriter was of
different texture from the original tran
script, ii having a different water mark
and being different in size. Then again the
space between the typewriter lines was
different, showing that the work had been
done on another machine from that used
in making the original transcript.
wOMAN'S AFFIDAVIT.
Accompanying the petition for a rehear-
ing in the case, was an affidavit from the
stenographer. young woman employed by
Ireland and Reister in making the tram
script. In the affidavit the young wamon
swore that she had made the transcript
and that the motion In arrest Of judgment
on Page 10 had appeared in the transcript
when it was originally filed in the case.
Afterward the same young woman made an
affidavit to the effect that she did not know
TO what she was swearing in the first af-
fidavit that she had made il at the in
stance of Ireland and Reister. and believed
that she was only making oath that she
had written the original transcript. In her
second AFFIDAVIT she stated that she had
not written Page 10 of the transcript nor
did she know who had.
IT Is on these alleged facts that the SUI
preme Court has ordered Ireland and Refs
ter to appear before ii and answer to the
charge of contempt. The specifications in
the charge of contempt are, first, in fall
ing TO maintain the respect that is due To
the courts of justice and judicial officers
and second. in employing for the purpose
of maintaining the causes confined to them
means that were inconsistent with truth,
and seeking 10 mislead the court by artifice
and false statements of law. The two at
torneys will be personally served with
summons this morning to appear before the