The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-12-19
DARLINGTON CASE
NOT YET DECIDED
Judge Scott Forced to Halt
Argument Until To-Mor-
row Morning.
BOARD FILES ITS ANSWER
Declares That 1t Meant No Dis
respect to Court in Second
Removal.
BOARD FILES ITS ANSWER

hr tsm ment IN contempt proceedings
mn against members OF the Board
OK o, Directors OF the Virginia state Pen
itentiarE. growing out OF the removal
OIL Or. Charles V. Darlington as prison
surgeon, was partly heard yesterday
city Circuit Court, has other matters
scheduled for to-day. BY consent, the
records In the various litlgations grow
lIE out or the Darlington matter were
placed In evidence. so that the present
proceeding goes straight to the root OF
inc whoic issue-whcther the board CT
the pcnitentiary has the power and
was within Its rights in removing the
surgeon from Office.
Miles NJ. Martin. +. ID. Thomson and
rinEton. and Attorney-General Will
liams and Richard EVELYN Byrd for the
prison board.
Says Action In Final.
The argument of Attorney General
Williams yesterday afternoon was an
trorcrsy in the course of which he
cited many authorities to support his
contention that the prison board was
within It's rights in removing tho sur
econ. and that having that specific ju-
isdiction by statute. Its action was not
subject TO review and reversal by the
circuit Court of the city of Richmond.
DR.. Darlington was summarily re-
moved by the prison board on October
81 last. lie applied to Judge Scott
and obtained writ OF mandamua com
relling his reinstatement on the
ground that he had been removed with
out due notice or hearing. The board
mas appealed from this order of re-
instatement. but pending the time 1t
ing the right Of the court to rclnstntc
the surgeon who had been dcposed the
board served notice on DR.. Caring ton.
and after five days held a meeting and
rom nd In hi
time from the office to which he had
been reinstatcd by order of the court.
DR.. CarrnEton's attorneys held this
proceeding TO be contempt OF court.
and a rule was issued rcturnnblc yes
'terday against James y. Patton. sam
uel Cohen. W. b. Bradley. Luther l.
Schcrcr and l.. Gerald Stratton to show
cause why thcy should not be punished
FOR contempt.
Charge Is Insubo rtlin alton.
In filing written answer to the
rule issued BY tho court attorneys for
tho board get forth the proceedings
already had. including the serving OF
notice and the due removal OF DR.. Car
rlnEton from Office. thus meeting the
objection raised by the court that his
former removal had been without due
notice and hearing. The board states
in it's reply that after this hearing st
removed DR.. Darlington for acts OF it-
subordination. which, in the opinion
and Judgment of the board and upon
misbehavior."
In conclusion the board assures the
court that IT meant no disrcspect to
tho court, having no intention of act
Ing in disregard of court orders. but
that it was advised by counsel and In
fcrrcd from the previous order of thu
court as we'll as from tho statute,
that 1t had the right, upon notice and
Investigation. TO remove the surgeon
for pisbehavior. and that such proceed
ing WAS entirely within the discretion
Of the board. The answer further
states that since there arc many hun
drcds of desperate and lawless men
confined in the pcnitcntiary. tho dis
ciplinc must be almost military In
character. and should the board permit
the slightest INSTRUMENTATION among
its officers. discipline, could not DC
maintained and the Srarcst results
would follow.
il is anticipated that when Judge
Scott hands down his decision In this
case. he will also decide tho pending
mandamus proceedings iof Or. Caring
ton against the State Auditor of Pub
lie Accounts for collection Of salary
since October 81. the day of his hrSt
removal