The Washington times., 1905-10-24
INCIDENT
FULLY EXPLAINED
Justice Wright Did Not De-
n0unce Lawyer.

Developments Of the past twenty -four
hours have served to make clear yes
terday's incident between Justice
Wright and Attorney Julius I. Peyser.
The first report, gathered hastily and,
as 1t developed later. from a source un-
friendly to Mr.. Peyser, attributed
language TO the Judge which he dis
claims in a statement printed below.
This statement and that of Mr.. Pey-
ser to Times reporter serve 10 give
a complete account Of the matter.
Judges Statement.
Judge Wright said:
when the Kupferberg case was be-
fore the court yesterday the assistant
United States district attorney stated
that at the time Kupferberg was brought
up for sentence. he was ignorant of
the condition OF the record. and was
unaware that he had not been arraigned
according to law. upon the Indictment. /
then inquired of Mr.. Peyser whether
at the time of making his statement
Of the case in Kupferberg's behalf. and
his urging light sentence. he knew of
the defect in the record which made the
imposition Of sentence erroneous. Mr..
Peyser replied that he knew IL at the
time and intended TO take advantage of
the point on behalf OF his client / then
said that he ought TO have acquainted
the court with this very important fact
for the omission of Ii from his statement
Of the case. together with his plea for
clemency. had led the court to believe
that the conviction was in all respects
regular; the court had thus been led
into a mistake and that II seemed to
him discourteous and disrespectfui to
the court.
Peyser's Defense.
Mr. Peyser at once stated that he
had entertained no intention Of any dis
courtesy nor had he entertained the idea
OF deceiving any one: that he had
thought the point could not be raised
except by waiting until after sentence
had been imposed and then proceeding
by habeas corpus. To this | replied
that had the matter been brought to
my attention sentence would never have
been imposed at all: the time to raise
the point was before the court took ac-
ton. rather than afterward ii is the
against errors before they are com
nlitted: the sentence will be set aside
the warrant OF commitment recalled
and the case restored TO the status
which prevailed when Kupferberg was
brought into court. .
Tine discussion was entirely amicable
and without heat or acrimony upon the
part CT either court or counsel"
District Attorneys Duty.
Mr. Peyser said TO Times reporter
today:
when the case was called for Kuf-
ferberg TO be sentenced the District
Attorneys office knew that the record
showed that there was no arraignmeni
and no plea whatsoever. and the notes
kept by the District Attorney. which
were brought into the court showed
thar the defendant never pleaded and
was never arraigned
II maintain that tho dufv Of
the District Attorney and not mine to
make the statement to the court
After the short hearing in the court
District Attorney Baker and myself
were in consultation with Judge Wright
and II was there explained that the
District Attorneys office had known
defendant had never pleaded or been
arraigned TO the indictment
BY fling these papers In the case
/ did what all lawyers would do to
protect the interests OF the clients, and
II any technical mistake had been made
by the clerk OF the court I had the
right 10 take advantage
Judge Wright did not say what he
| is reported in last nights Times as
saying that he thought / ought TO have
Informed him of the statement OF the
record. while l Thought that il was
the duty of the District Attorney and
not mine TO rectify any errors made
by the clerk OF the court.
1T was a misunderstanding. and
this technical point. which | used.
placed him in the light OF sentencing
a defendant on void judgment But
/ did not in any manner undertake TO
reflect upon the judge as he had no
knowledge OF the incomplete record" :"