Los Angeles herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1900-1911, 1908-02-18
CHARGES ARE
MADE AGAINST
ATTORNEYS
SENSATION SPRUNG IN OCEAN
PARK CASES
ATTORNEYS ACTIONS SUBJECT
OF INVESTIGATION
Men Arc Said to Have Subpoenaed
Witnesses and Made It Appear II
Was the Grand Jury Sum-
" moned Them

| Conrey's court yesterday when attor-
neys for bennett Childs, one of the
men indicted by the grand jury on
| the charge of illegal registration at
| Ocean Park, presented charges against
| Hartley Shaw, chief deputy district
| attorney, and G.. Ray Horton, deputy
| district attorney, of contempt of court
| by abusing the process of the court,
| abusing the proceedings of the court,
! falsely pretending to act under any
| of the processes of the court misbe-
havior in office, violation of their duty
and unlawfully interfering with the
| proceedings of the court.
| The attorneys asked the court to cite
Shaw and Horton to show cause why
/ they should not be punished for con-
| tempt, and Judge Conrey considered
| the charges of so serious a nature that
| he instructed the representatives of
| the district attorneys office to present
| their side of the matter at o'clock
/ Monday.
| The charges against Shaw and Hor-
| ton were contained in an affidavit
sworn to by bennett Childs, the first
| of the indicted men to be placed on
| trial. In it he declares that on Febru-
airy IA and Is the grand jury was not
| in session and held no meeting of any
| Kind Horton and Shaw, he says, is
| sued, in the name of District Attorney
Fredericks, subpoena purporting to
be issued under the direction of the
| grand jury, to Mrs. Bessie j. Blum,
| and commanding her to appear Feb
| ruary Is as a witness. He declares his
| belief that the grand jury did not au-
| thorize the issuance of this subpoena
by the district attorney at any time.
Served by Officer
The subpoena was served by J. B.
Campbell, deputy sheriff, and when
| Mrs. Blum was taken to the court
house she was closeted with Shaw and
Horton, who are said to have ques-
toned her concerning the movements
of Childs, the sole object being to OBJ
tain evidence to be used against him.
The attorneys for Childs contend
that such subpoena can be issued only
| when the grand jury Is in session and
that witnesses subpoenaed must go
directly before that body and give In
formation they have to it alone.
The defense in the case of bennett
Childs was represented by e. A. Me-
serve, w. H. Anderson, J. Stephens,
John Mott, e. e. Millikin and H. w.
O'Melveny, while Hartley Shaw and G.
Ray Horton appeared for the prosecu-
ton. Before the impaneling of the
jury Attorney Mott suggested that
those summoned to serve on the Jury
be excluded, as he had certain affida-
Wits to present. The Jurors were there
fore excused until 2 o'clock.
The affidavit of bennett Childs was
then offered and Mott stated the de-
Tense would present another affidavit
of a similar character, the person sum-
moned in this instance being Miss
Helen Gullick.
Charges Are Serious
Judge Conrey said he could not fail
to recognize the seriousness of the
charges, but he intended to withhold
any opinion until the prosecuting Off
GERS could be heard.
Shaw stated Horton and himself
would be able to meet the issue raised
by the defense, but requested the court
not to let the matter interfere with the
trial of the case.
A discussion, not entirely devoid of
heat, followed, the attorneys for the
defense declaring that men with such
charges hanging over them should not
be allowed to try the case. They de-
clared willingness to have any other
two representatives of the district at
torney's office appear for the prosecu-
ton or to have District Attorney Fred
ericks conduct the case with the as
| sistance of Shaw and Horton.
1t was finally decided to take a re-
cess until 11:45 o'clock in order that
Horton and Shaw might have an OPP
portunity to discuss the matter with
the district attorney.
Following the recess Fredericks ap-
peared in court. He did not deny, he
said, that subpoenas had been issued
from his office, but declared this was
done as a matter of expediency and
in order to discover whether witnesses
would be valuable or otherwise in the
Investigations of the grand jury. Any
other course, he said, would result in
delaying Investigations.
Attorney Makes Statement
st cannot see how the case of the de-
PENDANT will be damaged in any way"
he said. "hy the calling of these wit
nesses in the manner stated. They
are our witnesses and we have right
to subpoena them"
The court, however, was apparently
not satisfied with this statement.
you have every right" said Judge
Conrey, ito ask any witnesses to go
to your office and to question them
but If you bring witnesses there under
grand jury subpoena, giving them
the impression that they are to APP
pear before the grand jury, and then
take them to your office while the
: Jury is not in session, l cannot be-
lieve other than that 1t is not cor
rect use of the process of this court"
The district attorney declared that,
assuming this to be true. he Is the
one upon whom the blame should rest.
"These men," he said. referring to
Shaw and Horton, work for me, and
l am ready to answer the charges.
Furthermore, If the attorneys for
the defendant are looking for fight
of that kind propose to give them the
fight of their lives. To do this now,
however, would only result in giving
them what they want and that is de-
lay"
i Judge Conrey closed any further ar
gument, saying he would hear the
matter of contempt at 8 o'clock Mon
day and that the trial would proceed.
The afternoon was taken up in the
selection of jury. which work was
finished just before adjournment when
the following men had been selected:
B. Baruch, 1407 South Figueroa
/ street; w. S. Ewing, 2606 North Sichel;
/ Thomas L. Gooch. Rivera; Thomas j.
.een, Spadra; Darius d. Johnson.
Norwalk; e. A. Mas, Alhanbra; j.
M. Miller, 1858 West Twelfth street;
J. w. Ogle, Pomona; Charles Rehr-
man, Monrovia; s. M. Sewer. Pomona;
/ d. M. Sutherland. 1850 West Four
teenth street. and Frank Wride, 912
East Adams street.
-<e>e-