Los Angeles herald., 1908-03-04
CHARGES ARE
DISMISSED
COURT HOLDS ATTORNEYS ARE
RLAMELEsS
SAID TO HAVE ISSUED GRAND
JURY sUBPoENAs
Hartley Shaw and G. Ray Horton Ex-
onerated of Blame in Connection
with Contempt of Court
Proceedings

Following an examination of wit
nesses and short arguments which took
up two hours in Judge Conrey's court
yesterday afternoon the contempt pro-
ceedings against Hartley Shaw, chief
deputy district attorney, and G. Ray
Horton, deputy district attorney, were
dismissed.
District Attorney Fredericks repre-
sented his deputies in the proceedings,
while the prosecution was in charge OF
Attorney John c. Scarborough, who
was appointed some days ago by the
court for that purpose.
Demurrers to the affidavits of Den
nett Childs and William Wagner, In
which the two deputies were charged
with issuing grand jury subpoenas
when that body was not in session and
questioning persons summoned IN the
Offices in the court room, were present.
ed by the district attorney.
The demurrers contained denial OF
practically all the charges in the az
fidavits, although 1t was admitted that
Horton had questioned Mrs. Jessie j.
Blum concerning Childs' residence IN
Los Angeles and Miss Helen Gulick
regarding Wagner's movements.
Both these women were present in
court and testified that they had been
served with subpoenas on February
IA. but when they reached the court
house discovered the grand jury not
to be in session and were taken to Hor-
toms office, where they were interro-
gated.
Had Trouble with Woman
Shaw said much difficulty had been
experienced in securing Mrs. Blum
attendance and he had suggested to
Horton the advisability of bringing her
to the court house, but had not In
structed the use of grand jury sub
poena and did not know that the grand
jury was not in session that day.
Horton also testified and said If he
had signed the subpoenas he had done
so inadvertently He had not. he said,
Intentionally used a grand jury sub
poena to bring Mrs. Blum to the court
house and did not know she was there
until his attention was called to that
fact.
1t was explained that the district at
torney's office is called upon to issue
large numbers of subpoenas, especially
during the sessions of the grand jury,
and that these papers bear marked
resemblance to the subpoenas issued
for attendance in the superior court.
1t was also stated that many subpoe-
mas are signed in blank and filled out
later. while others are signed without
full knowledge of their contents.
This practice was severely criticised
by Attorney Scarborough in his state
ment to the court. "It does not relieve
the district attorneys officers" he said,
"when they say it was an inadver-
tence, for it is their business to know
that proper process was issued"
Little Testimony Presented
District Attorney Fredericks declared
it was mo light thing to bring charges
against a man on such small testimony
as has been brought out in this case"
He believed, he said. that the men
who were charged with the serving of
processes were told to get witnesses,
and in their zeal or through inadver-
+ence filled out the subpoenas.
Judge Conrey said there was such
uncertainty in the case of Mrs. Blum
that he could not feel warranted in
finding either of the deputies guilty of
contempt under the Childs affidavit.
which charged both with violating the
process of the court. In the affidavit
of Wagner, in which Horton alone was
charged with contempt the court said
there was an absence of direct proof
that the deputy had signed the original
subpoenas, and If he did so it was an
act Of negligence and to a considerable
degree excusable.
He declared, however, that it would
be a most reprehensible practice if in
tentional.y INDUCED in, for the district
attorneys office to use grand jury sub
poenas to bring witnesses to the court
house when the jury is not in session.
The charges were then dismissed.