Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-05-18
UP TO JUDGE BARNARD
To Decide as to Question of
Answering.
BATTLE OF LAWYERS
UNEXPECTED HALT IN WOW
RoQUEs PROCEEDING.
Witness w. M. Williams, an Attorney.
Declines to Answer Questions
Certified to Court
BATTLE OF LAWYERS
Witness w. NJ. Williams, an Attorney.

Proceedings in the case of the Baroness
Won Roques against D.. w. Armstrong and
others for the recovery of certain lands in
Virginia and Kentucky, which Mr.. Clayton
L. Emfg told a reporter for The Star yes
tcrday would come to a close today, did so.
temporarily, at least, but not in the man
ner apparently expected by Mr. Emg. The
interruption came when an effort was made
to take the deposition of Mr. W. Mosby
Williams, attorney for j. II. Walter.
Mr. Williams admitted i'm a general way
that he had some papers in his possession
which the attorneys for the defense said
they wanted to have placed in evidence. In
answer to a query by MIR. II. w. Arm
strong Mr. Williams declined to exhibit the
papers or to answer any question concern
ing them. 1t apparent that this was
an unexpected blow to the defense. Mr..
Williams claimed that such papers as he
might have were in his possession by virtue
of his being the attorney for MIR. Walter
and that this possession made him priv
ileged not to give up any of them without
the consent of his client. by whom they
were given to him for safekeeping.
Mr. Armstrong was indignant at the turn
CT analrs- and over the objection If Mr..
Williams, who claimed a period OF two
days notice, in accord with the rules of
practice of the District of Columbia
courts, summary took the matter before
Justice Barnard in recess for a decision.
The hearing, which being conducted
in the office of Mr.. Emig, i'm the Colorado
building, was thereupon adjourned and the
attorneys in the case, together with Mr..
Williams, repaired to the office OF Justice
Barnard, where formal motion was made
to have the justice order Mr.. Williams to
answer the questions propounded to him.
The justice was not willing to decide I'M
mediately In the premises and postponed
the matter until June g, when the question
viii be argued pro and con
Another Question Arises.
Another question THAT arose was the al
legged failure of Mr. ]. H Walter 10 answer
a summons TO appear at the hearing and
continue his deposition7"wl!ch was started
several days ago. Mr.. Walters did not
show up this morning, and Mr.. Em.g and
Mr.. Armstrong insisted~before Justice Bar
nard that an attachment be issued against
him requiring him to Show cause why he
should not he punished for contempt nf
court for failing to obey an order OF the
court. Justice barnard did not issue the
alta chment
The showing made before tie sus ice DID
not convince him that tn - had been any
contempt. but rather cuuv need h m that
the serving OF the summons had not been
acccmp ed by the ! ecsls ny egal reuat.re-
ments. At any rate. he suggested that the
best way to get Mr. Wa tiers was TO ssue
another summons in proper form and ac-
companied by TIE neeessl ieSai require
ments.
A TELEGRAM VS. received from New York
saying that Mrs. FIurt nee E Mayh ick.
who is identified with the case of the
Baroness Won Roques her mother. against
d. w. Armstrong and others was too i'll
TO come to Wash ngton. Mrs, Mayor ok IS
suffering from oss-fcation of the knee
joint. brought about by kneelng so much
while scrubbing floors and doing other
mental work in the English prison.