Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-04-18
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Justice Wright Sustained in
McCauley Contempt Case.
JURISDICTION UPHELD
TESTIMONY SUFFICIENT TO
PROVE APPELLANTS oFFENsE.
Lower Court Reversed in Case Of Kar-
rick, Administrator, Against
Wetmore, Deceased.
JURISDICTION UPHELD

| The Court of Appeals. In an opinion writ
| ten by Mr.. Justice Morris and handed down
| late yesterday affirmed the Judgment Of
| Justice Wright in Criminal Court No. l in
| adjudging Benjamin F. McCauley to be
guilty of contempt of court and sentencing
| him to Imprisonment in jail for six months.
| Mr.. McCauley was accused of attempting
| to influence juror in favor of Samuel Gas
| senheimer. who was about to be tried on
| the charge of receiving embezzled property.
| 1t was contended in behalf of Mr.. McCau-
| ley that Justice Wright was without juris-
| dction to try him in summary way with
out a jury, and that the evidence did not
support the charge.
The Court of Appeals, in It's opinion,
among other things, says:
ut is conceded, and it could not well be
denied, that an attempt corruptly to in
fuence a juror in cause pending in court
is contempt of court, and a most serious
offense against the administration of JUS
tica.'
The court. referring to the question of
the sufticiency of the testimony against Mr.
McCauley, adds: at is true that at first
sight the testimony is apparently meager
Bur upon closer examination it will be
found ample to constitute a prima facie
case against the defendant which he has
made no effort to overcome"
Failure to Testify.
Discussing Mr. McCauley's failure to tes-
tify for himself. the appellate court holds
that ''if his business with the Juror had
been legitimate it would have been easy for
him to say so. and to state what that BUSH
ness was. But 1t is very clear that his pur-
pose was to corrupt the juror and to in
huence him unduly In the case mentioned in
which 1t was probable that he would serve
and in which he did actually serve as a ju-
ror
There can be no other reasonable inference
from the testimony: and think. there
lore, that the testimony was sufficient to
prove the appellants offense"
On the question of the Jurisdiction of Jus
ice wright to punish Mr.. McCauley the
Court of Appeals decides that there fs M
possible difference between the corrupt so
licitation of jury at the court house door
or In the corridors of the court house or in
some obscure nook of the building and a
precisely similar corrupt solicitation at the
nome OF the juror or the place of business
OF the corrupter
The offense.' according to the Court OF
Appeais' is not greater in the one case
IMAM IN the other, and its influence upon
az. me administration of justice is precisely
the same in both cases. We cannot think
That, In the enactment of the statute in
question. Congress had any intention to
substitute typographical Determination
pet"een acts which have no possible rela-
tion 10 the matter of greater or less dis
lance from the court house"
NO exactly similar case has arisen the
court says, by which it can be guided but
several leading decisions are referred to as
indicating the course the court should fol-
low Justice Morris says: Upon reason
ana analogy and with due regard. as we
think. both to the letter and the shirt of
.ne staIute, we are of opinion that, in the
contemplation of the statute the anneIIant
act was committed in the presence Of the
court AS we have intimated the question
- NOT one OF geography or topography. of
=, opiiiquity or remoteness, but one of di-
| justice 'i a'ioh VI
ne administration Of justice is equally
rs ucteu Wherever the act is done and
~ o1e pace OF the solicitation is absolutely
OF no consequence whatever Whether the
ACT was done in the court house or q mile
| OF hundred miles away, the result is pre-
ciseiy the same. the disturbance to the
ooult IS precisely the same. The act in it's
nature Is not one dependent upon location
| TOT It's greater or less influence on the adj
inlnistration of justice. A riotous disturb
ahce In the court house, or so near thereto
as 10 disturb the proceedings of the court.
| Is very different thing from a riot five or
| ten miles away, which by no possibility
| could Interfere with those proceedings. In
| the case of such a disturbance the matter
! OF location is most important circum-
stance. But the bribery of juror or the
| intfmidation of a witness pollutes the foun-
| tains of justice at their source and reaches
at once to the very seat and shrine of the
OF justice, Whatever he the
place where the formal act is done Under
such circumstances the court is wherever
the juror or the witness is, and there is no
question of locality in the case.
Part of the Court.
Every juror is part of the court wher-
ever he is says the court. Under our
common law the jury is as much part
of what may be designated as the ma
chinery Of the administration of Justice
as is the judge; and a corrupt attempt to
influence the jury. or any individual mem
her of it, is offense differing only in
degree from a similar attempt to corrupt
the judge Judge and jury are component
parts of the court. An attempt upon the
integrity of the jury, or upon the integrity
OF any individual juror, is direct attack
upon the court; and the court is entitled
to protect itself from all such attacks by
| the methods which the common law has
established for the purpose, namely, by the
way OF summary proceedings for the con-
tempt of court"
Further, the Court of Appeals expresses
itself to the effect that it is unfortunate
that the arbitrary and necessarily auto
cratic power to commit for contempt of
court has sometimes been abused, but that
the existence of the power is essential for
the existence of courts themselves, and that
civil liberty and the due administra ton of
justice are necessary concomitants of each
other.
Lower Court Reversed.
By an opinion written by Mr.. Justice Nor
ris and also handed down late yesterday
the Court of Appeals reversed the action of
| the lower court In the case of James l..
| Karrick. appellant, against Berton O. Wet
! more, administrator of the estate of
Charles H. Wetmore.. deceased. to the use
| of John F. Mckay
AS defendant in suit at law here based
upon judgment of the superior court of
Suffolk Mass, for $12SSI. 46, the appellant
| filed plea setting up that June II, 1893,
the Massachusetts court dismissed the case;
| that June %, 1900. he was discharged in
bankruptcy, and that in November, 1900
without summons, citation or notice of any
kind to him, the Massachusetts court set
aside the Judgment of dismissal and en-
| tered the Judgment upon which the suit
was instituted in the Supreme Court of the
| District of Columbia.
| The Court of Appeals says that 1.-The ques-
| ton in this case is whether a Judgment of
dismissal, on its face apparently a final dis
| position of the cause in which 1t was rem
dered. can after the lapse of five terms of
| the court by which 1t was rendered be
| stricken out without notice to the defen-
dant. and a Judgment rendered in the place
| of it, equally without notice to the de-
PENDANT, in favor of the plaintiff and for