Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-03-10
ALLEGED CONTEMPT
CASE OF ATTORNEY MOSS BEFORE
COURT OF APPEALS.
The Question Considered is as to Valid
ity and Effect Of Lower Courts
Order.

AFTER several pOStpONeHleHtS HcdiihS was
begun today before the Court of Appeals in
the John A. Moss contempt case. The APP
peals, two in number, are from action by
Justice Wright of the Supreme Court Of the
District of Columbia, one being from an
order adjudging Moss guilty of contempt
and the other being from an order made by
Justice Wright overriding demurrer to
return to a writ of habeas corpus and re-
manding Moss to the custody of the war
den of the jail.
The question involved in both appeals is
the validity and effect of an order signed by
Justice Wright December II last, adjudging
Moss, colored member of the bar, to be
guilty of contempt, and as punishment
therefor sentencing him to be imprisoned in
Jail for ten days, the imprisonment to take
effect from and including the date of his
sentence, and to pay a fine of $25 and -
costs, and in default of payment to stand
committed further until paid.
Affidavit Filed.
An affidavit was filed December 10 In
Criminal Court No. 2, stating that James
Butler was defendant in a certain suit, be-
ing indicted for the crime of murder, and
that the jury, ''in custody of the proper Of
ficers of said court, was under the order OF
said court proceeding in a body along
public street of the city of Washington, in
said District from the place appointed py
the court for the taking of their breakfast,
to the said court room to proceed with the
trial aforesaid: and that, then and there,
one John A. Moss. we'll knowing the prem
ises, and with corrupt and unlawful design
and purposes, unlawfully to influence the
said jury and their verdict in said cause,
did in a loud tone, fully heard and under
stood by the said jury and each of them,
call out and announce to the said jury,
Not guilty, gentlemen; not guilty.
The court made an order requiring rule
to show cause against Moss, charging him
with being guilty of a contempt of court
in unlawfully and improperly commune
eating, against the order Of the court, with
jury impaneled and sworn in cause, and
a rule was issued requiring him Ito show
cause, If any you have, why you should
not be punished for contempt in crying out
aloud to and in the presence of the jury
sworn to try the issue joined In this case
and before the jury had rendered its YER
dict in said case, and while the said jury
was passing along the north side of d
street between 9Th and 9th streets north
west, in the city of Washington, d. c.,
between the Tours of and o'clock of the
forenoon of this day, in the custody of GER
tain bailffs of this court, the following
words, to wit, Not guilty, gentlemen; not
guilty.
Plea of Not Guilty.
Moss appeared in answer to this rule, and
orally said that he was not guilty, and
thereupon hearing was had. December
81 1903, the court passed an order adjudg-
ing the appellant guilty of contempt, and
as a punishment therefor sentenced him
ito be imprisoned in the common jail of
the District of Columbia for the period of
ten days, said imprisonment to take effect
from and including this date and to pay
a fine of $50 and So costs, and in default of
payment of saio fine and costs to stand
committed further until paid
From this order an appeal was taken.
In the other case, Moss, December 3d.
filed petition for writ of habeas corpus
alleging that he was detained in Jail by an
order of Justice Wright, (which said order
is alleged to be based on certain proceed
ings in contempt, which said alleged con-
tempt happened out of the presence of the
court, and is not attempt within the
meaning of section 125 of the Revised
Statutes of the United States" He added
against him, and that he was sentenced and
fined. Moss further alleged in his petition
that the imprisonment was unlawful and
void, and that the court had no authority
In an alleged contempt proceedings to i'm
pose a sentence of fine and Imprisonment
and that the only authority that the court
had was to either fine or imprison, and not
both. He asked the issuance of the writ,
which was accordingly DONE and the same
day James H. Harris, the warden of the
Jail, filed his return, In which he said that
Moss was In his care and custody by virtue
of commitment. The warden further
stated that the fine and costs had been paid
and satisfied.
Demurrer Filed and Overruled.
To this return a demurrer was filed on
the ground that the court had no power
and jurisdiction under section 725 of the
Revised Statutes of the United States,
which, counsel for Moss alege, is in effect
in the District, to hear the alleged cause
of contempt, and that the court had no
authority to impose a fine and imprison-
ment under the section cited.
The same day the demurrer was over
ruled and the petition dismissed. and Moss
was reInanded to the custody of the war
den From this order also an appeal was
taken in open court
Defendant Moss was admitted to bail by
order of the Court of Appeals, Justice
Wright having refused to release him from
custody pending determination of the ap-
peal.
Counsel for Moss contend that Justice
Wright erred In holding that he had power
and authority to hear in a summary way
the alleged charge of contempt; that he
erred In imposing both a fine and impris-
onment; that he erred in holding that sec
ton 725 of the Revised Statutes of the
United States is not in effect in this juris-
diction, and that he erred in refusing to
discharge Moss from the custody of the
warden of the jail.
The government takes the view that the
legality of the sentence is the only question
before the Court of Appeals. At common
law, 1t was urged, the proceedings would
be valid, and if, Notwithstanding section
l25, that law may be invoked "as we sub
init it may, the sentence must stand" II
section 20 was binding on Justice Wright
the governments representative argued. his
jurisdiction was only exceeded in the impo
sition of sentence and the case should be
remanded to it for correction in this re-
spect.
United States Attorney Beach and AS
sistant United States Attorneys Taggart
and Gordon appear for the government
while Attorneys John C. Cuttings, Wilton j
Lambert and d. w. Baker represent Moss
To Amend District Bill.
Senator Mo('opaS vaStardav ,,roDoeaa -,