The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-12-10
PRISON SURGEON
Is AGAIN REMOVED
7(Contlnued From Firgt PaxeN

- NSohtihuSo from First PaHe.)
and 6tratton as sindividuai ImembeTa
OF the board; the truth Of the state
ments contained in the. article Will
OF necessity be In Issue In this pro-
ceeding. and members Of tho bonrd
VINO are alleged to have been reflected
upon In the article should not sit ms
JUDGES In this matter. In which they
are personally In terested.
Thas the board has prejudiced tho
case In that in Its sworn answer Oled
In tho mandamus proceeding still pend
Ing in the Circuit Court OF the civ Of
richmond under the short style Of
harrington vs.. Board or Directors Of
the Virginia Penitentiary.' 1t made the
!oilowlng statement: And they (the
board) further aver that they Will be
further warranted and Justified In en-
tering a further order removing him
(Dr. Carrington) should further In
vestisation be had after notice."
Richard E. Byrd. who acted as coun-
eel for tho board. made motion to
deny tho objections and was sustained
However. the objections were made a
part OF the record
In the following statement DR.. Car
rington made answer to the charges
OF the board:
Formal Answer Made.
The said notice IL SO vague and
indehnlte In It's terms that the ro-
sPoHueut 10 IN BFeut QOuDt as to what
ere the specific acts with which the
board intenls to charge him. but, an
well az he can gather from said no.
tice. he understands the charges In
De as follows:
Il. That DR.. Darlington failed and
refused. In his letter to the board OF
october II, 1911. to give to tho board
4 certain part OF the Information which
the board had requeRted In It's letter
TO him OF October 0. 1911.
~; That. In the newspapers and 9TH
charges against the board OF such a
character ny prevent any further cor
diG cooperation between himself and
tho board.
'a. That DR.. Darlington has caused
to have printed other communications
and statements rejecting on the board
and State officials.
correctly advised as to TIC charg ca
intended to be preferred against him.
he submits the following as his an
swer thereto:
Or. Darlington dated October 0. 1911.
four cues tionB were asked. and In hia
feply, dated October II. 1911, the sec
ohd and fourth OF said questions eere
answered fully; the first was answered
In part by referring the bonrd to the
written reports made from time to time
TO the superintendent, and an answer
TO the remaining part OF said frst
declined because. in addition to the
reason assigned In his said letter. DR..
Darlington was not then in position
TO answer said question specifically.
This respondent Ia now, however. In
position to answer raid questions 20
the best OF his knowledge and infor-
nation. II SIN insisted upon.
~. In answer to the second charge
shove bet forth, respondent denies that
in the news1apers or otherwLec. ne has
made charges OF any kind whatsoever
against the board of directors OF the
State Penitentiary: and that, even II
he had made such charges as above set
forth. they would have constituted no
legal ground for hie removal as sur
Scon.
20. In answer to the third OF said
charges, respondent denies that he has
caused TO have printed any other com
Wnnicut!ons or statements rejecting