New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-11-16
LAWYER GETS 50 DAYS
FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT
Joseph F. DarIing's Conduct OF
a Case Anglers Both Judge
Swami and the Jury.
SAY HE TRIED INTIMIDATION
Counsel for Woman Punished
Also for Repeated Equal
Suffrage Harangues, De-
spite Warnings.

Joseph f. Darling. the attorney who
managed to have himself locked up be-
cagsc Of the possession of a revolver when
the Sullivan law went into effect and
who according TO his own statement has
served half dozen terms in jail in the
cause OF liberty" was adjudsed guilty Oh
rpnrempt Of court and sentenced to thlrlS
davs in the Tombs yesterday by Judge
Swami in General Sessions \ stay OF ten
DAYS vas granted that Mr.. Darling might
prenar, his case for request for writ
Of habeas corpus.
The jury before whom Darling cheht
was on trial agreed with Judge swami
view Of his conduct. ayerring that MS ac-
ton was the "meanest' thing they Hau
ever known, in the language OF theH
foreman Mr.. Darling was counsel for
Anna Beaver. charged with the THEFT OF
SIC from William a. Delaney. or NO. 10y
Amsterdam avenue. with whom she had
been drinking. She was convicted OF
grand larceny after the jury hao oeeh
out two minutes by the clock.
When the verdict had been announced
Judge Swami told the jury that Mr.. Oar
ling had refused to begin the case until
no was assured that Mrs Addie Delaney.
the wife Of the complainant. would De
subpnnaed as witness for him. MT.
Darling had told Judge Swami that ne
wanted her to show the bad character OF
her husband
you heard her testimony" said Judge
Swami to the jury, and l want TO know
from YOU as citizens whether that young
woman was not brought here simply for
the purpose Of intimdating the complain
ing witness"
Jurors Call II Mean Thing.
Then il was that Charles Genscher, the
foreman. replied that it was the mesnest
thing he had ever heard Of and the
other Jurors agrg ed with him.
Joseph T. Darling" said Judge Swami
The court adjudges YOU guilty Of Grim
inal contempt specifically because you
without warrant Of law brought the wife
Of the complaining witness into court on
q subpoena. thereby abusing the process
of this count in order and In the hope that
her presence would iGtimdate the com
planning witness. Your excuse was that
you wanted her as a character witness
sainst her husband but when questions
along such lines were put to your client
la,er YOU objected saying that the mat
ter OF virtue had nothing whatever to do
wrh the question of her credibility as a
witness.
Moreover. during the progress Of this
Trial YOU have repeatedly and purposely
iIsulted the court. You stated that the
rulings of this court were parallel to
hose Of tyrant of whom you had read
much. In spite OF at least forty or fifty
warnings from me, you launched forth on
political harangues and debates on the
subject Of woman suffrage You have pur-
posely delayed this case by filters and OBJ
jections. and endesvored 10 denect atten-
ton from the real issues"
Mr. Darling said that, according to his
recollection, the complaining witness was
not in court when he announced that he
would call Mrs. Delaney, and, therefore,
could not have been intimidated. II she