Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-01-20
MO | f Oh :.0 0! Fri
Charges,of Contempt Against
BENJAMIN l,, F. Mocaulley.
CASE SET EOR HEARING
AN ALIEeE Ed ATEMpT TO 1NFLu-
FncE 4 4. JUROR.
Arguments Of Counsel Before Justice
Wright-Echo Of Recent
Suit in Court.
CASE SET For HEARING


Justice Wright. in Criminal Court No. 1.
this afternoon overruled the motion of Ben
1amin F. McCauliy that the rule requiring
MIN to show cause why he should not be
ad1udged to be, in contempt Of court be
quashed The case was thereupon set for
hearing on its merits at 10 o'clock tomor-
row morning.
Inc rule to show cause, 1t will be remem-
oered was based upon an affidavit filed by
Mr.. James 8. Easby-Smith,s one Of the as
sistant United States attorneys for the Dis
trict of Columbia.
1t set forth the evening of November 20
last, Mr. McCaully Ibid then and there
with corrupt and unlawful design and pur-
pose unlawfully to influence BENJAMIN F.
SHAW as a juror said to him, in eff
Iect, tnat "a case was coming on for trial
on Inc following Monday in the court In
Wnich the said Shaw was serving as a
Juror, IN which railroad company was
trying to down a man, and that he desired
to talk to Shaw about the case, meaning
therepy that the case of the United States
agt Samuel Gassenheimer was coming on
Tor trlal on the following Monday in the
court aforesaid, and that the aforesaid
baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company was
trying to down the said Samuel Gassen-
neimer' and that he, the said McCaully,
wished to talk to said Shaw as juror
concerning the case, then and there in
tending improperly to influence the said
Shaw as juror in said cause. and then
and there attempting improperly to influ-
ence the said Shaw as juror in said cause
as aforesaid"
The affidavit in conclusion charged that
MT. McCaully Is guilty of contempt of the
court and its power and authority.
The Attorneys Present.
When the matter was called for hearing
today Attorneys Birney G Woodland and
George E. Tralles appeared as counsel for
Mr.. McCaully. In addition to Mr.. Easily
Smith, Assistant United States Attorney
Keigwin was in attendance. Attorney Biz
ney opened the discussion. He first read
Mr.. Easily Smiths affidavit and then SUBJ
mitted a motion to quash the rule to show
cause. 1t was that "Mr. -McCaully, appear
ing for the purposes of this motion, and for
none other. moves the court to quash. and
for naught bold, 'thearule to show cause Is
sued out Of this court the 18th of January.
1905, against this defendant, requiring him
ished for contefhpp as in said rule is ' set
forth. Tts.sst5t ~
Because the affidavit fled in said cause
and upon which the rule to show cause was
issued by this court is based upon infOrm1-
ton and belief and not upon positive
knowledge, as by law required.
And because the said rule was imp ovf-
IDENTIFY issued and the court was without
jurisdiction TO issue the same.
And for other reasons 81"
Authorities Cited.
In support III the Motion Attorney Wood
ard read numbers6 f authorities and ar
gued that the rule SHOULD be quashed. be-
cause 1t hadebeen issuad upon the strength
of an affdavit'the averaents or (which were
y.
there was nothing FOR Mr.. McCaully to an
swer. -
Next to address the court was Mr.. Easily
Smith. who among other things contended
that it was entirely proper to issue such
rule. even without an affidavit as basis.
Attorney Birney. 10 support Of the motion.
closed the discussion.
Justice Wright, in disposing of the matter.
explained that there are two classes of
contempt cases. One class involves the right
of a party litigant. The other class Is in it's
nature criminal in that it. strikes at the
pure and untrammeled administration of
justice. There had been an fndiscriminate
application of authorities in the McCaully
case Justice Wright added. He went on to
say that if it be that a court Of its own
motion cannot bring forward an individual
accused of contempt the court would be an
object of ridicule. - 80 q
An affidavit based on information and
belief. Justice Wright maintained is sufh-
Further. Justice Wright expressed the be-
lief that juror, no matter at what dis
lance he may be from the court house Is
in the presence of the court sufficiently to
guard the juror against an effort to cor
rupt him. The court then oyerruled the
motion to quash. -.
Exception Noted.
Attorney Woodland noted an exception.
and moved that the defendant be furnished
with interrogatories to be answered. This
motion was promptly overruled and an ex-
ception noted. Next Attorney Woodland
next Friday in order that counsel might
investigate the facts of the case.
Mr.. Easby-Smith opposed delay and JUS
tice Wright remarked that the case was
very unusual one, and If the defendant was
promptly in order that 1t should be gen.
orally understood that attempts to corrupt
Jurors would not be tolerated.
Counsel for Mr.. ,MeCaully Informed the
court that they had been called into the
case only a day or two ago and had not
had an opportunity to familiarize them
selves with the facts They urged that the
hearing be allowed to. go over. at least until
next Monday Tuesday.
81 will pass the case until tomorrow
morning. but no longer" Justice Wright de-
cided.
1t was remarked that Mr.. Birney had ar
ranged to go on a cunning trip tomorrow
THAT ought to appeal to your honor"
Attorney Woodland said.
THAT'S the strongest reason that has
been given VET replied Justice Wright
who is an ardent sportsman. smilingly,
''but nevertheless must fix the hearing
for tomorrow" 4 a,z