The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-03-21
Petition in Their Behalf for a Writ
of Habeas Corpus Filed in the
United States Supreme Court.
PLEA MADE FOR HARMONY
BETWEEN THE FEDERAL COURT
AND FLOYD COUNTY COURT.
Crum and Byrnes, Who Were Not Con-
frmed by the Senate, ReappOinted
-Foulke to Spooner.

WASHINGTON, March 2o.-A petition for
writ OF habeas corpus was filed In the
Supreme Court of the United States to-day
in the case of William w. Watts and David
Sachs, attorneys of Louisville; Charles d.
Kelso. receiver; Sheriff Raymond ]. Morris.
of Floyd county. Indiana, and some
of the latter's deputies. which involves a
sharp clash of authority between the Fed
eral District Court for the district of In
diana and the state court for the county
Of Floyd, in the State of Indiana, of which
New Albany is the county seat.
The complication grows out of a proceed
ing in bankruptcy, instituted originally In
the state Circuit Court for Floyd county
against M. Zier & Co., a corporation en-
gagged in the manufacture of boilers. A
receiver was appointed for the company
by the state court some three months ago,
and subsequently a petition in involun-
tary bankruptcy was filed against Zier &
Co. by their creditors in the Federal Court
at indianapolis. A receiver in bankruptcy
also was appointed by that court. Acting
on the advice of Messrs. Watts and Sachs,
his counsel, the receiver for the state court
refused to surrender the property to the
receiver appointed by the Federal Court.
The receiver of the state court and his at
torneys were summoned to Indianapolis,
and. after an interview with the federal
Judge. consented to advise that the prop
erty be surrendered to the federal author
tiles. They found, however. that the state
court would not comply with their request
to this effect. Indeed, instead of comply
ing, the state court issued a rule against
them to show cause why they should not
be punished for contempt in exceeding
their authority Notwithstanding this rule.
the receiver under the state court did sur
render the property, whereupon his ap-
pointment was revoked and Charles b.
Kelso was appointed receiver Sheriff Nor
ris, or Floyd county, was given orders to re-
take the property and turn it over to Re-
ceiver Kelso, which he did. Thereupon Mr..
Kelso, the sheriff, the attorneys and the
sheriffs deputies were summoned to In
dianapolis to appear before the Federal
the cases came up all were found guilty of
contempt and ordered to be imprisoned in
the county jail of Marion county, Indiana.
Mr.. kelso and Messrs. Sachs and Watts
were given sixty sentences. The sher-
IN, deputies and watchmen were given
shorter sentences. and all but two of them
are now in Jail.
The petition filed to-day was presented
by Messrs. David Fairleigh and Bernard
Flexner, and is intended to secure their
release. They contend that the proceeding
is void against Mr.. Kelso, who was
the state court receiver, because he was
not party to the bankruptcy proceeding
in the Federal Court and was under the
orders of the state court, and also void as
against the attorneys, for the reason that
they had no authority to secure the sur
render of the property as required by the
Federal Court They also make a plea for
comfy between the state and federal
courts, which. they contend, should be their
clients protection against harsh proceed
ingS.