Omaha daily bee., 1907-04-07
BROWN Is NOT AN ATTORNEY
Admits the Fact in Answer Filed il
ths Contempt Proceedings
lSJUNcTIONs WAIT ON CONTEMPT CASE
Browns Attorney Asks They he Set
for Trial, but Presiding Judge
Refuses Until Action Against
Brown Is Decided.


Refuses Until Action Against
Brown Is Decided.
J. Brown, the saloon crusader from Kan
sas, Is not an attorney at law. He has
at last been forced to admit that he has
not been admitted to the bar. Despite
the fact that when he rented an office
on Pearl street he hung out a shingle,
-. Brown, law and real estate" that he
signed the notices and petitions in the
numerous injunction suits brought against
the ssloonkeepers OF Council Bluns and
other towns throughout Pottawattamic
county and seemingly conveyed the i'm
preston to the committee from the Potta-
wattamie County Bar association which
waited on him that he was a duly prac-
ticing attorney, Mr.. Brown yesterday in
his answer filed in the contempt charges
brought against him in the district court
by County Attorney Hess states he is
not, never was and has never assumed to
be an attorney at law.
Browns hearing on the contempt
charges filed by Mr.. Hess was set for
yesterday morning before Judge Wheeler,
but owing to the trial Of Roy Green not
being completed, the hearing was post
poned until next Saturday. Mr. Brown
was in court, accompanied by his attorney,
N A. Crawford, who filed the answer to
the contempt charges on behalf Of his
client.
Attorney Crawford, on behalf of Mr..
Brown, asked the court to assign at least
one Of the saloon injunction cases for
hearing. I'VE do not propose to have
the county attorney delaying the trial of
these liquor cases" was the reply Of Mr.
Crawford when the court declined to set
one of the injunction cases for trial
mo liquor cases will be heard until
these contempt proceedings are disposed
Of They will be heard first" remarked
the court with sufficient emphasis to allow
Browns counsel to realize that he meant
what he said.
From the fact that Attorney Crawford
used the word I'VE in referring TO the
saloon cases, 1t is taken to imply that he
will act for Brown in the saloon injunc
ton suits unless they are stricken from
the docket. Motions to strike from the
docket have been fled In all the cases.
Differences over Statements.
In his answer Brown admits filing the
notices and petitions in the saloon In
junction suits as ~. Brown, plaintiff"
and -. Brown, attorney for plaintiff
After making this admission he proceeds
to state that after placing the notices
in the hands of the sheriff for service
the latter prior to serving the notices
called at his (Brown's) Office and then and
there asked him II he had been admitted
TO the bar in Iowa. In reply to Sheriff
Cannings query he states that he said
- b,1 he In the
answer Sheriff Canning informed him that
he did not believe he (Brown) had any
right TO practice in the court here. To
this Brown states he made reply to the
effect that he was the plaintiff IN the
actions and as such was appearing on his
own behalf and acting as his own attor-
ney.
Sheriff Canning, however, denies these
| statements contained In Browns answer.
and yesterday stated he had made no
! such statements as asserted by Brown.
| When Brown first appeared in the sheriff S
| office with his first batch of notices of in
| junction suits against a number of saloon
J keepers, Sheriff Canning said: Hello.
| what are these2" Brown replied. Mr..
| Canning says: They are notices for you
to serve. l am an attorney" Sheriff Can
ming consulted with County Attorney Hess
before serving the notices
Further in the answer Brown admits APP
| pearing In court on the occasions set
| forth in the contempt charges, but says
| he did not then nor never since has and
| does not now assume TO be an officer,
| attorney or counselor OF the court, or to
| appear as such, on behalf OF any one other
than In his own behalf"
He asserts that when appearing in
court before Judge Wheeler he Informed
the latter he was the plaintiff I'm these
saloon cases and as such appeared in mis-
own behalf and did not assume to be an
officer, attorney or counselor OF the court
He asserts he is resident and citizen
Of Pottawattamie county and that the Pc
titions clearly show upon the face OF them
that J. Brown. plaintiff therein, and J.
| Brown, attorney for plaintiff therein, were
/ and are one and the same person.
| In his notices served upon the saloon
| men against whom he brought injunction
suits Brown called particular attention tC
the fact that he demanded an attorney fee
In each case. The notice, after briefly
reciting that the petition would be filed
| on or before such a date made promi
nent mention OF the fact that the plaintiff
| ]. Brown; claimed OF you the sum o.
SIS money as Justly due from you as at
torney fees" The way the notice wa
worded would convey the impression tina
the S25 attorney fee was the principal OBJ
ject sought and that the injunction sui
was merely a secondary proposition.
Green Found Guilty.
II took a jury in the district court yes
terday but a few minutes to determine
that Roy Green, on trial for the theft o
an overcoat from the store OF the JOIN
Beno company last February, was guilt,
as charged. Green's trial was begun Fri
day and the case was given TO the jur!
at the noon adjournment yesterday. Tn
jury announced it's verdict few minute
after returning from dinner.
County Attorney Hess win ask tina
Green be sentenced under the "commo
thief' act. County Attorney Whitney o
Woodbury. county and Detective Richard
Il son OF Sioux City testified at the trial tina
Green had been convicted OF larceny thre
times in Sioux City in 1905 while goin
under the name OF Frank Brown. Gree
p himself testified that he was in Jail praC
) | tically all the time he was in Sioux cit!
; When asked as to whether a certain inc
p dent mentioned by him while on the wit
| gtopH In his own behalF occYrrad drg1