The San Francisco call., 1905-03-16
FREED THROUGH
TECHNICALITY
Il. A. CrOthers and Fremont
Older Purged of Contempt
OF Court by Judge Cook
FINE POINT is DRAWN
Should Have Instituted
Proceedings Before Jurist
on Different Legal Lines

In a lengthy decision that took
over an hour in delivery, Judge Cook
yesterday dismissed the contempt pro-
ceedings against r. A. Crothers and
Fremont Older of the Bulletin On
technicality.
The principal point raised by the
respondents was that no proceedings
had been brought against them be-
fore Judge Cook as a judicial officer,
but were pending in the Superior
Court for the city and county of San
Francisco. The alleged contempt con-
sisted of comments on the cases of the
women arrested at $40 Jackson street,
who had made applications for writs
of habeas corpus before Judge Cook,
and the prisoners were ordered to be-
brought before the Judge. 1t was con-
tended that if any contempt had been
committed 1t was punishable by Judge
Cook as judicial officer and the pro-
ceedings should have been brought
before him as such judicial officer and
not before the Superior Court rs a
court
POINT PURELY TECHNICAL.
On this point the Judge said: If
these contempt proceedings had been
initiated before me, as such judi
cial officer, L would have no hesitation
in adjudging the respondents guilty Of
a contempt of myself as such officer,
provided, as such officer had the
same jurisdiction to hear and deter
mine the matter that ] would have
had had a writ been issued bv a JUS
tice of the Supreme Court and made
returnable before me as = Judge.
D IL i
on the contrary, they were initiated
ana are pending in the Superior Court
and the affidavit charges contempt
of that court and that the habeaS cor
pus proceedings were, at the time of
the alleged publication, pending in the
Superior Court. Consequently the evil
dence introduced, showing as it does
such proceedings should have been
pending before me, acting as a Judge,
wholly independent of the Superior
Court, fails wholly to sustain the al
legations of the affidavit on which the
Superior Court issued the warrants Of
attachment herein, and for the rea-
sons stated 1t is clear that such at
/ tachments must be dismissed. Not
because the respondents are not guilty
of a contempt of court, but solely be-
cause such contempt was not a con-
tempt of the Superior Court in which
was a contempt either of myself as
a judicial officer or Of a court created
by the habeaS corpus act and COM
posed of a Judge only-without clerk,
bailiff or other officers-and before
which court or Judge no proceedings
for contempt have been instituted.
'UnQuestionably the point made by
respondents counsel for the avoid
ance of the consequences of such q
publication as that set forth in the af-
fidavit filed herein is purely technical
and if these warrants of attachment
are dismissed such dismissal will be
on account of technicality, pure and
simple, but these respondents equally
with any one else charged with mis-
conduct are entitled to the benefit Of
such technicalities as are by law
deemed sufficient to stay its power.
Technicalities are not recognized by
the law that the guilty may escape,
but that none who are innocent may
by any possibility suffer-
REFERS TO PERSONAL ATTACK.
On the other two points raised by
the respondents the Judge held
against them. He held that section
10 of the Code of Civil Procedure
has no application to proceedings in
contempt and If it had application
both aff1davits filed In the proceedings
should be considered; also that those
aff1davits being considered that the
objections made to the qualifications
of himself to hear the proceedings
should be overruled.
Speaking of the editorial bearing
the heading, The Judge of Last Re-
sort" the Judge said: 80 far as the
personal attack and libel on myself
are concerned, they can have no con-
sideration in contempt proceedings
and as stated by me in the affidavit filed
In response to respondents motion for
transfer of the matter, they are not
WORTHY of notice for the reason that
they are without foundation and were
evidenly written by some one iaboriny
under false impressions. Record evi-
dence is always superior to the unsup-
ported assertions of any one, ard
have ever found it to be a truisn that
an unjust attack hurts no one. for
truth is mighty and must prevail and
in the end he who is right Will be ui-
umphant.'