The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1903-06-17
J. ALTHEUS JOHNSON.

"A Iii wv" ~As'sH - - ----
$50 for His opinion Of the Court
For Mr. John>ons's Opinion Of An
other Court He Paid only $40.
A short conversation with the Uni
ted States Treasurer few days ago
cost Mr.. J. Altheus Johnson S5O, and
he paid SO additional for saying that
one of the Judges of the Supreme
Court of the District of Columbia Jus
tice Hagner) had conducted his court
as "kindergarten." Justice Hag-
ner held Mr.. Johnson to have acted
in contempt of his court and fined
him in the amount above mentioned.
The contempt incident, which was
given prominence in the Washington
napers. at once directed attention to
litigation which has been in progress
for two or three years. The litigation
involves the ownership of certain
funds in the hands of the United
States Treasurer due for sewer con,
struction in the year 1897. The rival
claimants are Elias Wlneland and Eli
wood o. Wagenhurst, the latter being
represented by Mr.. Johnson. Justice
Hagner, in 1901, declared Wineland to
be the owner of the funds, but the
Court of Appeals of the District OF
Columbia reversed the decree and dl-
rected dismissal of Wineland's suit.
Wineland sued again; and Justice
Hagner decided in his favor again,
and in the second suit passed an or
der authorizing the Treasurer to pay
the money into the registry OF the
court. MI. johnson asked the Treas
urer to continue to hold the money
until the Court of Appeals could re-
view Justice Ragner's last decree.
Justice Hagner declared Mr.. Johnson
in contempt of his court, and at the
same time ordered the Treasurer to|
nav the money forthwith into the
registry of tie court. Mr.. johnson at
once paid the fines and noted an ap-
peal from the peremptory order upon
the Treasurer Justice Hagner re.
fused to entertain the appeal and
ordered the money into court. Il
johnson thereupon repaired to the
Court of A ppeals and obtained an order
superseding the order,of justice Hag
ner. The money Is still in the U Cnlted
States Treasury Department and JUS
tice Hagner's second decree is IN the
Court of Appeals for review.
The following extracts from the
Washington Post and the Washington
Times, respectively, would seem to IN
dicate that MIR. Johnson is still lack
ing in respect for Justice Hagners
latest decree:
Washington Post: The briefs in the
Wineland- Wagenhurst case were pre-
sented to the Court of Appea yester,
day afternoon. The brief in behalf OF
Wagenhurst, after reviewing the lit
iyation in which the Court of Appeals
reversed the decree of the lower court
of November Is. 1901, similar to the
one of April Z, 1908, signed by Justice
Hagner, which is appealed from, says:
1--WE have heard of justice being
blind, bat we have yet TO learn that
q court is so blind that it is not able 10
see its own records and DEGREES when
peoperly pointed out and described
and still ablindness of that kind seems,
for the moment, to have gathered
about the court below when it. made
the decree of April Z, 1908. We asked
the court to see for itself, "These are the
same parties who were here before, and,
see. they are claiming the same thing
they claimed before" The court did
not see, and we are now here to ask
this court to say that pail OF darkness
lad, for the moment, fallen about the
,p1icial chair, preventing the occupant
:, ,.rceiving what had been done III
:,r fiis own court and was already en-
rolled as part of the history OF the
court"
Washington Times: Counsel for
Wagenhurst. in the course of an elabo-
rate eview of the former litigation,
SAYS IN his brief, evidently alludiIg to-
tn recent contempt precedings had
against Wagenhurst and himself:
o"These appellants have come back
and brought with them to this court
a thing which has the form and verl'
similitude of decree of the Supreme
Court of the District of Columbia, a
thing which would be entitled TO the
respect properly belonging TO the de-
cree of court of competent juri>dic-
tion, except that it was made under
the shadow and in the teeth of the
mandate of this court. Made under
such circumstances, the decree, so
called, however artificially painted,
can be nothing but llfeless form,
undeserving of respect, and even the
maker of it would not be able to com
mand respect for it, though for the ir-
reverent he should heat, seven times
over, the furnace reserved for those
who fail to pay homage to the decree
of a court. The image which Nebu-
chadnezzar in the Bible story wished
the people to fall down before and
worship as a god is no more lacking
in the soul and spirit of divinity than
is the image we show here devoid of
the soul and spirit of law. 1t may be
an evidence of the handiwork of the
men who made it; it is not likeness
which bodies forth the law in the
case"