The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1906-04-06
GLASMANN AND MAN HURRY
Fail TO Put in Appearance in
Contempt Case and Attach
ltllent Issued for Them

BECAUSE they failed te,-put in an
appearance,s- in the Second district
court yesterday morning att1the time
named by Judge J. A. Howeu, In the
citation for contempt proceedings
against William Glasmann and Frank
Francis, the defendants were brought
into +cpurt at 5 o'clock last evening on
a writ of attachment.
GlasHaann was in Salt Lake when the
courts order was issued, but returned.
Upon reaching Ogden he telephoned
the sheriff -and later accepted service,
en'the matter came up in court At
torney r. 5. FarnsWOrth took all the
blaine upon himself and in this way
he succeeded in getting his clients out
of an unpleasant situation He ex-
pla1ned that there was no intention to
9Vade the process or to delay the case,
out he took it upon himself to as
sumo that the court would not take
up the case when there was an i'm
portant jury trial on. He asked that
the defendants be relieved from blame
in the matter.
Judge Howell then stated that it was
not his desire to punish the defend
ants and that he did not want to make
1t any harder for them than was nee
essary. He said that he had no Idea
of taking up the ca Sc yesterday. nor
of disposing of it at that time, but he
had set yesterday as the date for it to
be called and inasmuch as the courts
order 70 show cause is similar to a
warrant Of arrest the defendants were
in duty bound TO appear. He said that
at the time the defendants were pre-
NiouSly brought into court they were
released on their own recognizance and
the same would still hold good He
then Informed counsel that a motion of
some sort should be filed in order thar
the case might eventually be brought
to trial.
At this juncture of the proceedings
Mr.. FarnswOrth stated that he was of
the Impression that he was doing the
court a favor in not putting in when
there was important case on trial.
He was prepared and granted leave to
file a motion asking that the order TO
show cause against the defendants in
the contempt proceedings in cOnnec-
ton with the j. d. Skeen VS.. William
Craig case be dismissed, for the rea-
son thet the affidavit upon which the
order was based did not state facts
sufficient to authorize the court to is
sue any such order to give this
court jurisdiction i'm the premises.
During the day Attorney J. \. Kim
ball filed with the court a motion to
tempt against District Attorney Hal
version The reasons set forth are:
THAT 4 appears from the allegations
in the affidavit ard also from the re-
Citals in the order to show cause that
the matters attempted to be charged
against the defendant as a cOntcmpt
Of court relates to a time prior to the
term of the pres mt judge and is there
fore not a contempt of this court or
judge thereof. That the matters re-
cited in the order are not sufficient to
constitute contempt or to state a cause
of action"
The rest OF yesterdays session of
the court was taken up with the dam
age action brought by a. I. Stone,
administrator for the estate of VIII
liam Murray, deceased VS.. the Union
Pacific Railroad company. The TAX
ing of testimony was commenced and
two witnesses were examined when
court adjourned for the day. The case
promises to be a long drawn out af-