The age-herald., 1901-05-17
ATTORNEY TRIED
 FOR CONTEMPT
George M. MaSterSon is Ac-
 quilted of Charge
FAILED TO OBEY SUMMONS
Case in Court Was Postponed On Ac count of His Absence and an Attachment Was Issued
 for Him,

In the City Court yesterday George M. Masterson, an attorney, was tried be- fore Judge W. ". Wilkerson for contempt of court and acquitted.
 MT. Masterson was summoned as a witness in the case of Lula B. Horton vs. A. s. Vandergfrit which was tried before Judge Wilkerson. He failed to obey the summons and the case had to be con tinued on account of his absence. An at- tachment was issued for him and he was arrested last Friday at his residence by Deputy Sheriff Love. In court yester- day morning he gave as his excuse for not attending court that he had been promised by MT Horton that he would telephone for him when he was needed and that he never received the tele- phone message
 It is somewhat unusual for a lawyer to be tried for contempt of court and the case attracted a number of lawyers and other witnesses.
 MT Masterson took the stand in his own behalf and stated that he came to court and saw Mir. Horton who told him if he wanted him he would let him know. That on Wednesday afternoon he told
 
 That eafly on Thursday MT Horton and Capatain Evans and himself had talk about the case and that Captain Evans told him he did not kow whether he would want him or not, and on that understand ing he thought he was excused. He de- nied telephoning MT. Horton on Thursday during the progress of the trial that he would be up in ten minutes. He also denied having telephoned MT. Hargrove, Deputy Clerk in the City Court asking him If the case was continued. He said he had been in Pratt City on business.
 The judge then asked the attorneys on both sides of the case if. as officers of the court, they cared to ask him any ques- tions.
 Attorneys Ask Questions.
 Capt. James L. Tanner, one of the at torneys, then asked Mir. Masterson if he had not called up the register in chan cery on Thursday afternoon and asked about the case. He said he had not that he was in Pratt City, and did not know an attachment had been issued against him until Friday, when his wife told him somebody had been looking for him.
 In answer to questions from Captain 1 White he said that he went off Thursday, knowing the case had not been conclud- ed That Frank Trugallier was his client at Pratt City, and that he went there to see some witnesses who were in the mines and could only be seen at night "Why didn't you come back Thursday night?" asked Captain White.
 Ut suited my convenience to stay" re- piled the witness.
 "Did your wife know you were going to spend the night there?" asked Captain White.
 "No," replied the witness. Continuing, he said that he stayed at home Friday and made no inquiry as to the progress of the case. In answer to other questions of Captain White he said he was law yer and knew what was due the court and the duties and responsibilities of a witness.
 George A. Evans, one of the attorneys, said that he had seen Masterson several | times, that he did not remember whether 1 he had told Masterson to be at court or not, that he knew he had been sub poenaed and took for granted he would | come When he did not come on Thursday | that he took out an attachment for him and thought the sheriff would have him by next morning, but as he did not come the case had to be adjourned. Other Witnesses. | Deputy Sheriff Lowe testified to arrest 1 ing the defendant and Clerk Hargrove testified that on Thursday about noon the defendant telephoned him and asked him if they were through the evidence in the Horton case, and that he replied no, and that they wanted him at once l and for him to come right up, and that l he said all right.
 Mr. H. M Horton testified that the ar- rangement he had with MT. Masterson was for him to remain at his office, and that he would telephone for him when he | was needed.
 | The defendant again took the stand and | said that he meant no disrespect to the court. that he would cheerfully comply with It's mandates. and tAat his non-ap- pearance was not wilful. The judge stated that he would dismiss the proceedings as there had been a tech nical release of the process of the court by Capt. H. M. Horton in promising to telephone. That the process therefore was not binding and that the defendant did not evade binding process.