The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-01-18
ISLAND CITY NEWSlTEM
Answer Filed by Attorney Rowe In the
Contempt Proceedings
MAYOR JONES on DEFEAT OF BOND ISSUE
Does xct believe the Question was
Properly Understood ny Those
Who Voted Against H..

Galveston. Texas, January i7,--In the
order made by the court OF civil appeals
on January IL. citing d. 7. Rove of Hous-
contempt for language used In his motion
for rehearing in the cause OF W. J. Moore
ct al VS.. c. C. vogel. the following was
rendered by the court:
Defendant fined SIS as for con-
tempt and committed to the custody
Of the sheriff until such fine and the
costs of this proceeding are paid by
him. Motion No Tao (which Is
Moore ct al VS.. c. g.. Nogel stricken
from the docket and defendant per-
mitted 10 file substituted motion II
couohed In proper language,
To the order OF citation made in this
cause ex parte ID, T. Rowe made the fol-
lowing answer:
And now comes D. 7. Rowe, the re-
spondent in the above cause, and Ia an
swer TO the order OF this court entered
on the 18th day OF January 1900, and in
extenuation of the matters therein. which
this court regards as contemptuous, says
that he had no intention TO treat this
court with contempt by the language used
In said motion.
'That by the language used as follows;
II II was capable to do so, respondent
meant nothing more nor less than II il
was permissible for the court TO pass on
this title. under the state OF the pleadings
as the court held in its opinion that un-
der the pleading OF the defendant, Moore
that the court was not required 10 pass
on the title set up as an outstanding TUX
In Thompson and Hudson, the appellant
Moore contending in his motion for re-
hearing that as Thompson and Hudson
were before tho court, that II they helt
( the title and this court shall so hold thai
equity would require that Moore shoult
not be required TO pay for something hi
had not received and as Thompson an(
Hudson had been made parties to the sui
to foreelose by appellee
THAT respondent meant by the Ian
/ suage, especially when II is apparent e
any learned Judges mind that Their,
could be no question To one learned in thu
i laws as the honorable judges OF thin
but that the appellant Moore never OBJ
tanned exclusive possession o. the lane
decided TO him by Holcomh,
That by the language used IN the above
as follows; The laws not requiring al
/ impossible thing 10 be done, II this cour
does respondent meant and intended :,
/ convey the idea that the court had de
cided that appellant Moore should havi
done something that II was impossible 10
4
an Impossible thing to be done. thst HI
did not mean that this court was in III,
habit Of requiring Impossible things 20 b
done,
4 Respondent further says that he dit
not BY any OF the language used IN SAX
motion. intend any contempt for this hon
I cradle court, for which he has the highes
respect but as the court has held tina
the language used 10 said motion is &
eOnternpt ~ this eourk nrirnn facir N
now requests the court to permit him b
Withdraw said motion and herewith ten
ders another one in its stead which hi
requests to hle as an amended motion
or substituted motion 70 that the IN
terest Of his client may not suffer or h
requests the court to egpunge any par
Of said motion that contslpe language tina
this court decides is In contempt 81 thi
Memorable court p. r Rove,
Subscribed and sworn 10 before mo this
the 18th day of January, 1900,
III, NJ Knight, Clerk"