The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1913-03-19
THE RAYMOND CASE|
COUNSEL FOR DEFENSE COM MENTS UPON SOME FEATURES OF ITS REPORTING BY
 THE PRESS.
Danbury, Conn, March 1s.

Editor Bridgeport Evening Farmer:
 Sir-The writer was counsel for Theodore Raymond in the late trial in the Superior court, criminal side, at Bridgeport, and while it is advis- able for lawyers, generally to avoid --ewspaper communications about eases in which they appear as coun- sel, there are occasions,-and the pres ent is one of them,-when that rule should be departed from.
 In your issue of the 4th inst, you gave great publicity to the fact that the court on that day declined to hear a motion, that the writer had filed, that a nolle be entered in the case, and that the court further stated that the motion ought lot to have been filed. A wide publicity was also given to this action of the court, of the 4th inst, in the Danbury newspaper.
 The motion was filed in good faith, and the writer understood that he had in substance, at least, precedent for filing such motion, but however that may be, he took no actio7. in relation to what the court said on the 4th inst, until the conclusion of the trial last Thursday, when the matter was explained satisfactorily to the court, but as you have made no mention of the latter event, this letter is writ ten.
 At the conclusion of the trial last week Thursday, the writer called the courts attention to it's statement on the 4th inst, in relation to the mo- tion for no1le, and the publicity which had been given to it, in the Bridgeport papers. and also the Dan bury papers, and the writer stated that he believed that thereby the standing of the writer as an officer Of the court might have been affect ed. That whatever the courts views were of the motion on its face. the writer in truth and in fact, intended no disrespect to the court, when he filed the same. The court thereupon stated that he accepted the writer s word, that no dfsrespect was intended, and furthermore stated that he had no doubt upon that point. The writer has waited for your newspaper to give some publicity to the action of the court on last Thursday, but has failed to observe that you have done so, ana this letter is written requesting you to let the public know what the court stated on the 4th inst.
 One of the reasons why the writer desires you to take this action is this:
 That 1t fs not only the duty of an attorney to stand well with the court, but to have the public know that he stands well with the court. and since your publication of the 4th inst stands uncorrected, the court is placed in the position with the public, Of having an officer of it's court held out as one that would show disrespect to the court, whereas in truth appears from the proceedings of last Thurs day, the court entertains no such view of the writer.
 The writer also desires the correc- ton for his own benefit, as a. lawyer and a man, and for the benefit of the Der.
 It is true that some of the public smile at efforts made by counsel in the interest of their client, which the courts at the time characterize as inn proper. It is also true that the courts take a tolerant view in many cases of over-zeaI of counsel in behalf of their clients, but it is not true that the courts treat with indifference inten- tiona1 disrespect to the court, and 1t is the duty which the writer owes Cand stated last Thursday that he owes) in the first instance to the court, and second to himself, and third to the profession, of which he is a member, that whatever the court s views were of the motion for a nolle, on it's face, the writer in truth and in fact intended no dfsrespect to the court in filing the same, and that the court stated that he believed the writ CT.
 It should be stated in hassing that the language of the motion was prop CT, and it's wording clean, also that the writer stated to the court that the defense Of cases of this character was not to his liking. but having un- dertaken the defense, and especially after the conviction of the main wit ness for the State, for burglary, he continued to act for the defendant, in the hopes that the case might be no11ed.
 It may seem that as this matter was satisfactorily settled with the court last Thursday this letter is far-fetch- ed, but the writer knows that mem bers Of his profession prefer that the public should understand that the 1e- gal profession intend to stand for the highest ideals of professional conduct, and want the public to know that fact.
 Yours truly,
 H. W. TAYLOR,
 Ill