The Birmingham age-herald., 1905-04-23
FALKNER IN JAIL CONTEMPT OF COURT judge Jones Gives Him Four
 Months in Prison
COURTS DECREE IN FULL
Was Charged With Improperly Ap- preaching Juror Who Heard Case Against Defendant Which
 Was Still Pending.

Y
 mission merchant Is now an inmate III the Jefferson county jail, having been sent there yesterday by order of Judge Thomas G. Jones, presiding in the United States court, to serve a term of four months for contempt of court.
 Falkner has been on trial for several days in the federal court the charge against him being that of using the Uni- ted States malls for fraudulent purposes. The contempt of court proceedings grew out of the pending cause. It seems that the jury In the case had been unable to agree on a verdict, and Falkner was arraigned yesterday morning in the fed eral court to show cause why he should not be punished for approaching A. M. Smith, one of the jurors who heard the case with the intent and purpose im- properly to approach and to influence said juror as 10 his verdict" The court fined Juror South slO for not reporting that he had been improperly approached by the defendant.
 The following is the decree of the court ordering Falkner 10 jail ana placing fine of s10 upon the juror:
 Judge Jones Decree.
 "The court having been advised that while the jury were deliberating in the case of the United States vs. E. T. Falk- ner. which was a consolidated indictment under section 54S0 of the revised statutes of the United States, that said E. T.. Falkner, the defendant, approached A. M. South, a juror, to influence him in his verdict, had the jury brought into open court, and in the presence of said E. T. Falkner and his counsel, after the jury had been discharged by the court from the further consideration or said cause, on account of their inability to agree, stated to the jury that the court had been advised that some of it's mem bers had been approached by the detend- ant to influence their verdict, and desired each one of them to state whether or not that was fact; and thereupon, each one of said jurors rising in his place, ex- cept said A. M South, stated that no one had approached them, and the said South stated that while coming into the United States court building yesterday even ing, being April 21, 1905, and while on the steps of said building, leading to the court room, the defendant had insisted on speaking to him, and told him 10 stand firm: and the court. having twice during the trial cautioned the jury against
 
 the case, and informing them if such things happened they must report 1t to the court, the court thereupon ordered the district attorney to prepare a rue hlsi based upon the facts stated by the Juror A. M South against the said E. T. Falk- ner. to show cause why he should not De punished for contempt of court for im- properly approaching the Juror south, while said juror was engaged in the trial of said defendants case; and also rule against the said South, to show cause why he should not be punished for dis obedience of the orders of the court, In failing to report to the court the at tempt to approach him by the said Falk- ner.
 "Thereupon the said Falkner and the said South being in open court and be- ing represented by counsel waived the issue of the rule ns and the court thereupon proceeded to examine witness es and to hear the matter. and there upon the court finds the following to be the facts: Said South was one of the jurors in said case of the United States vs. E. T. Falkner. and when the jury first returned q verdict thet were questioned by the court as to the reason fo recommendation thIt only nominal punishment should be imposed. The jur- or, A. M. South, then stated in open court oin the presence of the defendant that he did not believe the defendant was guilty but had consented to the verdict as the best way to dispose of the matter, whereupon the court declined to receive the verdict, irstructng the juror that 1t was his duty not to agree to a verdict of guilty if his conscience did not satisfy him beyond reasonable doubt of such guilt. Thereupon the jury retired and after some hours came again into open court and returned verdict of guilty, when Juror South, on turys being boiled in the presence of said Falk- ner in open court. again stated that the verdict was not his verdict, as he did not believe the defendant was guilty. T,hereupon the court refused to receive the verdict and nernitted the jury to go to their meals, again instructing th not to allow any one to approach them about the case, and that if any person approached them they must report the matter to the court.
 Dispersion of Jury.
 After this dispensing of the jury, and after they were again returning to the jury room, the defendant. E. T. Falkner, who well knew the attitude of the said South as to his guilt or innocence, and that he was then a juror engaged in trying defendants case, insisted on speaking to the Juror South and eX- horted him to stand firm" whereupon the juror. South, left said Falkner and made no reply to him The said South did not report the facts to the court. al- though he had abundant opportunity. and said nothing about the matter until questioned by the court this morning (April 9, 19o5). The court being of opin- -