The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1902-05-20
MIR, CRA||l|lEQRDTH ! |
1OIG0T0 AMHERST
Left last Night With Judge Mann
and a Deputy Sheriff.
1R Ed FIVE Y E: ! TIMES MES: HERE,

CoEpus--A Big Fight in & Pros
pectT he Jud dyes
Decisions.
Accompanied by his attorney and a
deputy sheriff Of Richmond, the Rev.
c. H. Crawford, superintendent Of the
Anti Saloon League and editor Of the
Christian Federation, left at o'clock
last night for Amherst, where, before
Judge Clarence J.. Campbell, he will be
tried for alleged contempt of the AM
herst County Court. Efforts made here
to secure a writ Of habeas corpus were
unavailing, and the appearance before
the Amherst judge became necessary.
Five separate attempts were made yes
terday by Mr.. Crawford ahd his attor-
ney, Judge Wv. H. Manu. Of Nottoway,
to quash the contempt proceedings. but
none had the desired result. In three in
stances Richmond judges held that they
had no right to interfere. In the other
two the case, for ordinary reasons, was
not gone into. Judge Mann dissents
from the view of the matter taken here
He made a big fight which has only
just begun. He failed in the first skir-
mish, but he declared yesterday that he
had no doubt as to the ultimate dispo-
sition of the matter. From the County
Court of Amherst, if found to be nee
essary, he will appeal to the Circuit
Court, and again to the Court Of Ap-;
peals If that step is needed. He is firm
in the belief thatshe will in the end win
his case.
OPINION OF JUDGE #WELLFORD-
The decision of Judge Wexford in the
matter was announced Immediately upon
the opening Of the Circuit Court yes
terday morning. The disobedience of.
the rule issued by Judge Campbell
AGAINST Mr. Crawford was in itself,
said the Judge. contempt Of court
unless it could be proved that the act
upon which the rule was 5issued-that u.s.
the article written in the Christian Fed
zeration-was not an act of contempt. II
that could be done the rule would be
void.
That the court had a right, however. to
issue the rule, Judge Wexford declared.
is undoubted That, when this rule was
disregarded. the court had a right to fol
low it up with an attachment is equally
certain. Both the statute and the corr.
mon law give the court this general
right. The question therefore turned
upon the ground for the issuing of the
rule. If it could be shown that this
ground was not sufficient, or was not
lawful then the rule could not stand and
the prisoner would be dismissed. AND
right here came in the question Of Jurls-
diction. Judge Wexford declared that IN
his opinion the Richmond court mad nc
authority at this stage to conduct this
Investigation of the ground for the rule.
This matter will have to be passed upon
first by the Amherst Court. II MI
Crawford was not satisfied with the yer
dict there. he had the right of appeal TO
the Circuit Court and finally to the SUI
premes Court.
The habeas corpus, proceeding was ac-
sc1,rately defined by Judge Wexford. He
said that its principle was to ensure for
a man a speedy trial and dismissal from
Imprisonment if the evidence was suff1-
Gent to sustain Euch an act. II man
were arrested on an attachment issued
by a Circuit Court on the last day or
its term and were to be imprisoned until
the next term of that court, say six
months off. the writ OF habeas corpus
would be a proper proceeding. But in
the case of Mr.. Crawford there was no
confinement. The rule tnerely sum
moned him for one day to Amherst to
stand trial. There would be no long
wait. His case would be gone into at
once.
HAS THE RIGHT.
Judge Wexford repeated the statement
that the Amherst Court had the right to
issue a rule anu to follow it up with an
attachment when it was left disregarded.
Moreover the inquiry into the ground
upon which the rule was issued would
have to be made first before the Am
herst court. This point was emphasized.
No other court has a right to step in,
saw whether Judge Campbell was right
or wrong in issuing the rule, and settle
the matter. 1t is to be supposed he said..
that when Mr.. Crawford went before
Judge Campbell and the latter invests
gated the case which he regards as con-
tempt, he would decide justly. 1t was
Judge Campbells privilege to look into
the matter in the first instance. Judge
Wexford said that it was not in his
province to say what he thought Of ac-
ton which the Amherst Judge regards
as content He has no right to do so
at this stage #, as stated before, Mr..
Crawford is not satisfied win Judge
Campbell's decisions, the statute provides
| ample relief in the way of appeal.
FINALLY in summing up Judge Wexford
said that the Richmond Court could not
| have jurisdiction at this time He there
! fore declined to grant the writ and re-
| manded the prisoner to the custody Of
| the sheriff.
FAILS BEFORE JUDGE WITT.
| After short conference Judge w. H.
| Mann, who is representing Mr.. Crawford,
went in company with the latter to the
Supreme Court of Appeals in an effort
| to secure q writ there. It was learned
from Judge Keith, however, that in va
cation a judge, of the court cannot grant
a writ Of habeas corpus. It will have
| to be done while the court is sitting.
Application was then made to Judge
Witt of the Hastings Court, but here
again was disappointment Avoiding the
| necessity of an argument Judge Witt
| told Judge Mann at the outset that he
had heard the decision of Judge Wexford
and he thought it a proper one. In his