The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1906-12-18
WILL ATTORNEYS
Be D|SBARRED2
Judqe PurneII Hints Sen
sation in Riggsbee Case.
HEARING POSTPONED
After Hearing From Counsel, judge
Saws if Allegations are Sustained
He VIII Attach for Contempt
Attorneys in Danger OF
TrOubIc.-Riggsbec'S
Answer.


Troublc.-RiGgsbee's
AS q result Of the hearing in the
matter Of the rule against w 7. Riggs
tee for contempt Of the federal court
i'm the abuse Of it's process, thu final
determination Of the matter was post
poncd until the adjourned term o. ne
Federal court. which Will meet IN REL
ci2h on the list of January next.
This course was taken after afGH-
ment uDOn a motion to QHash made by
Mr.. Jas. Pou, Of counsel for I@G@D"e
and replied to by District Attorney SHlh-
uer. and Caluc as the result OF tn"
contention OF the respondents ~oun@el
that to 60 fully into all the allegations
upon which the rule is based Molid
bc to air beforehand. possibly to the
prejudice of tn respondent, cases IN
the Superior court Of Durham cJ,ntN
in which he is the defendant.
Rig@sbce's alleged contempt consist
cd in having SubpOcEaed to appear IN
The Federal Court here witnesses ali
ready in attendance in the Durham
court on the trial Of indictments for
the illegal sale Of Whiskey and in nav
ing in one instance retained in Raleigh
through Federal Court process Il VIII
ness wanted by The Solicitor OF the
Ninth State judicial district to appear
before the grand jury on q bill which
had been sent against ItiggSbce HIM
self in which he was charged with
hallot-boX StuffinG.
While ~c0nSentiInG to the cOntln-
uanCe OF the hearing Judge HurnelI
took occasion to state FROM the bench
that from what had 50 far appeared
and taking the allegations 10 be true,
there had been Il contempt of court
on the part of Itiggsbee through an
abuse of the process Of the court TO
the end of an unlawful purpose. tend
ing to OhStruCt Il interfere with the
proceedings of the court.
Judge PurnelI also spoke with muCh
force upon the question OF the con-
duct of attorneys in interfering with
and unlaWfully using the process OF
the court, stating that as officers OF
the court there was not q shadow of
doubt hat their conduct in this re-
Spect was q CONTEMPT and that II the
matter was officially brought to his at
tenticn he should certainly proceed to
use the power of the court to debar
from further practice.
While in this connection, the court
took occasion t. refer to rumOrS that
he had heard during the present SEES
sion of attorneys who had taken gov
crnnent witnesses to their offices and
attempted to thus interfere with and
influence their testimony, it was clear
that he had special reference TO the
attorneys through whom thc subpOe-
macs complained OF III Ilc ItlSSSnCC
case were procured.
Colonel Harris Involved.
In citing the facts upon which the
rule issued, the District Attorney stat
ed thay he had afiidaVits that would
show that the ~subpoenas had issued
through the efforts of Colonel J. {. l..
Harris; that the witnesses were inn
material in the cases in which tn y
We're ~Gubpoenaed and that In On@ in
stance a witness was SubpOcnaed in a
cas- Of which he knew nothing. in
which Colonel Harris was not counsel
and in which neither ~efendan nor
his counsel knew of the witness being
~subpoenas. Colonel skinner stated
that he could show hat the process
cor these witnesses was secured TO
issue by I,igGsbce and hat it was
he who paid the money for the ser
vice and pointed out such of them
as were in Durham to the officer sent
there to make service.
1t was also stated by Colonel Skin
ner that h none to pay for the
~subpoenaS was brought to the Clerks
who was sent by his father for
officer by young Mr.. Harris (Ninder)
that purpose at the inStigation of
Colonel Harris, during the time Of
these statements and the subsequent
remarks of the court, WAS in the
room. having many clients III attcn-
III oI Iit NItbiJlS IL ,lII t'' I 'lIJtt
also being present in the capacity OF
a witness against RiggSbee.
No charge. other shan taat contain
ed in the clear implication cf the
court. has been brought against hlm
and II is p~rOblCIndtiCal whether or nUt
tn District Attorney Will later take
steps to proceed rains hirl in con-
ncction with the I;iGgsbee case
EiG"sbcc'S Motion and Answer.
Riggsbee's answer to the rule con
sisted first of u Ilea in which H., con-
ended that even if he had attempted
an act the effect of which would be
to interfere with and 0bStruct the ad-
ministration of Justice in a State Court,
that could not be q contempt Of the
Federal court and that the rule should
be dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Second. that the rule does not set out
facts sufficient to hold the respondent
Tor a contempt in that il does not
alleSe that the OffenSe was commit
ted within the presence. verge or Wow
Of the court or a refusal to obey
any writ or process of the court; and,
third. reserVin@ all other dcfenSeS, the
respondent denied that he had abused
the process of the Federal court for
the rpo of o~bstructjng the adj
ministration of Justice in the Superior
Court of Durham county.
Mr.. Pou and Ju.i~e purnclt.
After reading the answer. Mr.. Pou
Tor RiGsbee stated that if the matter
contained in the a]ffidavits were gone
INTO. the counsel for the responder
feared that he would be prejudiced il
certain trials in Which he would b.
the defendant in Durham county
tefofe 1t was ascNrtained whether
there had been ssnV real charg.
brought against him, he did not thini
that any good could come from the air
ing of the matter in this court. SuCh
proceeding would be in the nature .
q bill of discovery in aid of Il prosecu
ton in the State court. The OffcnS
charged against the defendant wa
having witnesses Il
attendance on a State court. Who dl'
not attend. That was q matter o
which the state court had full juris
dlctlon II in which it had ample an.
plenary powers. 1t ought not to be al
lowed that this court Should be use
in the aid of a prosecution in anothc