Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1906-08-23
As Witness in Contempt Proceed
inqs and ContradiCtS GIas.
mann's Statement.
EPISODE AN UNPLEASANT ONE.
Alleged Approval BY Judge Howell Of
Standard Article Before Pubilca-
tion the Question at Issue.


ogden Aug. s8.-ln the contempt pro.
ceedings brought against the STANDARD
Publishing company. William Glas-
mann and Frank Francis, which was
called in the district court yesterday,
Sudge Maughan denied the motion Of
ATTY. r. s. FarnsWorth for dismissal
Of the action and the taking OF testi-
mony was commenced at the afternoon
session. Quite sensation was sprung
by the defendant Glasmann during the
taking Of bis testimony, wherein he
charged Dist Judge Howell Of having
approved OF the article upon which the
contempt proceedings were based. prior
TO It's publication. Judge Howell. how
ever, denied having even seen the ar
ticle until after IL appeared In the pa
per.
After Air. Glasmann had testified and
denied having published the article for
the purpose OF influencing the court or
jury In any way iu deciding the case
against City Councilman William Craig.
he admitted having written the article.
but stated that it was done with
view Of reviewing certain conditions
that had existed IN which he claimed
that some yiolators OF the law were
not punished while others were. Judge
Howell was brought into the case on
the redirect examination when the fol-
lowing was brought out:
Mr.. Farnsworth, attorney for Mr..
Glasmanu, asked:
OIL will ask YOU 10 state whether or
not you took any advice from any per-
son.
A.-f1id.
Q-About the publication OF that arti-
Gle?
Atty. Hslyerson--I object 10 that on
tho ground that Il Is lmmaterial. irrcle-
want and incompetent II has not been
pleaded. and II anything 1t is an after
thought.
The Court-Well. I suppose It would
be immaterial whether or not ne was
advised 10 publish that: whether II Is a
contempt Of court or not viii have 10
he determined irrespective Of whether
20 was done under advice.
Mr. FarnsWorth-W Wouldn't II make
any difference who he was advised by?
The Court think Il would not make
any difference IL he was advised by an
attorney.
Here Mr.. Halverson had his objec-
ton withdrawn, and Atty. Farnsworth
continued:
o. viii ask you whether or not
you submitted that article TO anybody
f0r advice. and 10 whom?
Al submitted the article 10 Judge
Howell. and asked him II In any way II
HHHaiHt 10 or nj. 4
his court, and he said he did not think
II was.
Q.-What. II anything, did he say.
about the jury that 81 was not going
To read the newspapers?
Alt was he who told me that he IN.
slructed the Jury that they should not
read the papers.
o. viii ask you whether or not il
was discussed between you and Judge
Howell that this article did not refer
To the Craig case. II you remember any
such conversation,
Al don't remember whether there
was or not Probably Judge Howell
would be cautious enough 10 say there
wouldn't be anything IN there about the
craig case. and 10 wouldn't make any
difference about the Chambers case. I
went ~ with you, and YOU ought to
know as well as I.
Q.-Wel. / don't remember about
that. that Is the reason / asked you
When the questioning OF Mr. Glas-
mann was completed Judge Vaughan
asked County Clerk Mattson TO notify
Judge Howell that he was wanted as
q witness In the ease az bar and Dis
trict Atty, Halyerson had subpoena
issued which was served on Judge
Howell who Immediately came into
court The article which Mr.. Glas-
mann claimed he had shown 10 Judge
Howell previous 10 its publication aud
marked plaintiffs Exhibit "a" in the
pleadings. was shown him and he was
asked N that article had been sub
United 10 him on the evening Of Feb.
a 1905. the night prior to rs pub
ilcaiion IN the Morning Examiner
The judge after scanning II over for
% few moments said that he did not
remember Of ever having seen the
article until II was brought 10 his at
tention by District Atty. George Hal
version In open court either on the
Monday or Tuesday following its pub
lication
Judge Vaughan then asked the court
sienographer TO read Mr.. Glasmanu's
testimony as given above. which was
done and then the questions were re-
uewcd. Judge Howell replied that he
was quite certain that this article had
never been shown him by Mr. Glas-
mann on Mir. Farnsworth and that mad
Il been he would not have approved ~
IFS publication. especially the last por-
lion ~ the article
IL VAS evident from, the dcmeapof