Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-10-28
QUESTION OF JURISDICTION.
Justice Stafford's Decision in Colored
Baptist Church Controversy.

Justice Stafford, in Equity Court No .,
today disposed of the question raised
whether or not the court had jurisdiction
to adjudge Rev. Simon P. w. Drew, George
Robinson and William Howard. to be in
contempt, as was recently done, for viola
ton of an injunction order growing out of
the long-standing troubles affecting the
congregation of the Metropolitan Baptist
Church on r street between 18th and 18th
streets. Justice Stafford decided that the
objections to the jurisdiction of the court
were not well taken. Drew, Robinson and
Howard were released, on the security here
tofore furnished by them, until next Mon
day morning, when the question of the right
of the defendants to appeal from the order
adJudg1ng them to be in contempt will be
determined. The contempt order also will
become operative Monday.
The rule to show cause was issued May
81 last but no hearing was had thereon
until October 10. After the hearing Drew,
Robinson and Howard were adjudged guilty
and were sentenced to Imprisonment, Drew
for a period of sixty days and Robinson
and Howard for the term of thirty days
each. The defendants gave notice of their
intention to appeal, and Drew was re-
quired to enter into a recogniZance for his
appearance the 21st of October, and Robin
son and Howard were allowed to go with
out recognizance until the latter date At
the time fixed counsel for the defendants
moved the court to vacate it's judgment of
the preceding day, on the ground that it
had no jurisdiction to render it.
The objections to the jurisdiction of the
court to pass the contempt judgment and
sentence are that the restraining orders
having been issued without the filing of an
undertaking on the part of Anderson Hogan
and the other compliments, as required by
equity rule AZ, were issued without au-
thority, and that the defendants were not
bound to obey them and that the restrain
ing orders were likewise imperative and
void, as having issued in contravention of
equity rule 43, which provides that "a pre-
liminary injunction shall not be granted ex
parte unless prayed for in the bill and the
bill be verified in the manner prescribed
by equity rule so.
In his opinion Justice Stafford said THAT
it is evident from the language of the
undertaking required by the rule that II
his benefit only. That being so, it follows
that it may be waived.
AS regards Drew, Justice Stafford pointed
out that he made no objection that I'M
dertakillg had not been filed, and If he had
right to insist upon 1t. the court had
right to understand, in view of his attitude,
that he waived it. From April until af-
ter the sentence was passed upon him, ac-
cording to the court, he profesSed to
derstand and treat the order as binding
upon him; he treated it so in his petition
to have it dissolved; he treated it so In his
answer wherein he distinctly informs the
court that he has been enjoined: he treated
it as binding throughout the hearing
Gently terminated, insisting throughout
that he had not in fact violated the order
and he waited until the court had decided
against him upon the questions of fact
before ever calling the want of an under
taking to the attention of the court.
1t was added by Justice Stafford that the
that against Drew, and that Howard stood
no better.