The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-03-07

fore d grand jury OF the county, the sa i q
C. y. Campbell wrongfnlly instructed
the grand Jury that 1t was not uniaw y.
full for a druggist to sell "medlcated /.
3whiskey. With reference to this last
mentioned charge your committee is DE-
3vided as to whether they are FUZZY sus-
jtained BY the evidence taken IN the case.
THE majority Of the committee. VIZ ~.
B. Early, Jr., j. c. Gent, Richd 3. DaVls,
r, ~ Lee, Jr., Thomas II. Lion, George
iIc, Sine and G. w. Waddy, are Of opinion
that the charges are fully sustained, and
sliow the grosscst disregard BY the eald
Il. ], Campbell OF his duties In the prem.
'ises. Tho rest Of the committee thinK
those charges are not r,1lIy sts 'a'''eu'
It appeared from the evidence that 1or
a number of years prior to 1901 what
is known as the local option law was
In force In Amherst Courthouse Magis-
terial District; that one s. a. Day,
druggist In said county, was granted by
said G. y Campbell retail liquor II
cense for selling liquor at Amherst Court
house; that there were frequent and con-
tinued complaints !. that the said >. a.
Day was selling liquor at Amherst Court
house ii, violation Of the law and That
norsons had communicated these reports
TO Judge Campbell. and requested nm
TO have the matter investigated by the
rrand fury, and an Indictment found
against Che said Day; that the SAID Day
and Judge Campbell were close personal
und political friends; that at the spl'ns
of 1901 the said Day made application
for renewal of his liquor license. which
implication was resisted. and that alpoli
the trial Of that issue evideDce was IN,
,roduced that the said Day Ead so!"
iinuor in Violation of law, but notwlth-
.,ly.- l,-t. ~ 1xns renewed,
bit this Judgment was afterwards re-
yoked upon appeal to the Circuit Court;
that shortly thereafter the said Day
was prosecuted before justice OF the
nen ce for violation Of the liquor law, ana
the same witnesses were produced before
him that had been produced before Judge
on the application for the re-
ncwal Of the license, and the justice &c.
cided that there had been a VOCATION Q!
the law by Day, and imposed fine OF
one hundred dollars in each case; that
all during this time the said 9. j. camp
bell frcouented the drug store of Lay
where the liquor was sold, and patro-
nIzed tho said Day, certainly on one &C.
casion-on Sunday-bought from him
boy of cigars; tl1ot the matter was
before the grand jury, and IT
was sought to got an Indictment against
Day for violation Of the laws. and dur
Ing this inquiry the foreman of the grand
Jury came into court and asked me
Judge for instructions as to whether or
not n druggist could sell "nedicated'
liquor, and when Judge Campbell was
asked the question: "As a matter OF
fact. when you instructed your grand
Jury that a druggist had a right to sell
smedicated', liquor, that was an exceed
Ingly misleading Instruction." he answer
cd !: II have said I did it, and you may
cali 1t right or wrong. and VIII take
the conseaue noes"
a@ PLAINLY MISLEADING
II Ia true that Judge Campbell at
tempted to explain that he used the
word .smedicated" liquor in an inciden-
tal way. but, in the Judgment of ma
iority of the committee, it Is plainly
misleading and improper, ana seems 70
indicate on the part Of the judge reck-
less disregard of the requirements OF
the law.
Charge No. 9:
Relates to the cowhiding Of Or.
Crawford. With reference to this charge,
your committee are of the opinion that
Judge C. j. Campbell at the time ne Is
sued the rule and attachment against
Dr. Crawford did not Intend to resort
to personal violence on account or the
article which appeared In the Christian
with DR.. Crawford through the forms
of law in the proceedings for contempt;
but we are further OF the opinion when
DR.. Crawford appeared at Amherst
Courthouse the second time Judge Camp
bell had come to the conclusion that he
had no power TO punish him under the
proceedings for contempt, and that he
had then determined to try and eXtort
an apology from DR.. Crawford In the
courtroom, and. failing in this, to make
personal matter of the same; and
that after DR.. Crawford refused to apol-
ogze he inflicted corporal punishment
upon him. We are also of the opinion
that Judge Campbell was IN this state
of mind and feeling when he went upon
the bench on the morning Of the trial.
It IS mmaterial In our opinion, whether
the Judge had ordered the court to be
adjourned before leaving the bench
We are, therefore, of the opinion that
after Judge Campbell had instituted con-
tempt proceedings against DR.. Crawford
and caused him to be brought to- his
court IN the custody of the sheriff to
answer the charge Of contempt: after
finding that the conduct of DR.. Craw-
ford did not render him liable to pro-
ceedings in contempt as alleged, and
punish him through the process Of law,
the said G. j. Campbell determined to
resort to personal violence against the
said DR.. Crawford. and was thereby
guilty OF gross judicial improperly and
conduct absolutely unbecomng a Judge
Charge No. a:
NOT SUSTAINED.
we are of the opinion that charge No,
4 has not been fully sustained by the
evidence introduced as to all Of tho
charges hereunder made but we are OF
the opinion that there is matter
brought out in the development of these
charges, to wit: A matter of selecting q
judge for his own trial upon tho charge
OF assault upon DR., Crawford. We think
Judge Campbell in this matter was
guilty Of gross judicial improperly in
selecting Judge z. N. Wood to preside
at his trial under all the circumstances
and conditions Judge Campbell then
knew to exist. These conditions were
as follows: Judge y, n. Wood had writ
ten to Judge Campbell few days be-
fore Judge Campbell had assaulted Or.
Crawford. soliciting his support in his
canvass for the position OF circuit
1udgeshlp. Judge Campbell had answered
this letter. asking Judge Wood to meet
him in Richmond on the 25th of June,
which was the day after the assault. In
pursuance Of this Invitation, Judge Wood
----------------- --