Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1913-02-01
NELSON
IN CONTEMPT
OF COURT
CRITICISM BY KANSAS CITY STAR OF
COURT ACTION RESULTS IN YER
DICT or GUILTY FOR BARON OF
KAW VALLEY

w. r. Nelson, owner of the Kansas
City Star, pronounced guilty of con-
tempt by Judge Joseph A. Guthrie, in
the county circuit court this after
noon, was sentenced to one day in
the county jail, His attorney imme-
dateIy applied for a writ of habeas
corpus.
Judge Guthrie Immediately ordered
that Mr.. Nelson be turned over to the
sheriff and be taken to jail. Attorney
Walsh for Mr.. Nelson, urged the court
to grant five minutes in which to Sc
cure the writ of habeas corpus.
The court demurred but finally the
time was allowed after an argument.
Within the allotted time, Mr.. Walsh
announced that the writ had been
granted by the court of appeals. The
writ was made returnable immediate.
Iy and all concerned adjourned to the
court of appeals where an argument
| upon it was begun. The writ acted
as supersedeas and in the meantime
! Mr.. Nelson was given his liberty.
Judge J. M. Johnson, of the court
of appeals promptly granted the writ
and released Mr.. Nelson upon his per-
sonaI recognizance in bail of 500 un-
til next Wednesday, when the case
will be gone into thoroughly.
/ Kansas City, Mo-, Feb. 1.-William
X. Nelson, editor and owner of the
| Kansas City Star, this afternoon was
pronounced guilty of contempt OF
court by Judge Joseph A, Guthrie, of
division one of the Jackson county
circuit court.
The citation for contempt followed
the publication in the Star Of an ar
ticle stating that the payment of at
torney fees was given precedence
over the payment of alimony in a
divorce suit recently tried in the cir
cult court.
Judge Guthrie's decision elicted
from Attorney Walsh, for the defense,
the statement that he believed it had
teen prepared in advance Of the hear
ing The court admitted this, saying
that it was as easily prepared then
as any time since the court had the
facts i'll its breast
Upon Mr.. Walsh's insistence, the
fact that the decision was prepared
in advance, was put into the record.
The decision followed argument bJ
Attorney Walsh that finding against
Mr.. Nelson would not only be re-
Election upon the dignity OF the court,
but an act based upon theories OF
time, when any per-
son could be cited at any time upon I
any charge of contempt of the kings
ministers and thrown into prison"
Only three witnesses testified. Re
peated objections by Attorney Yates.
friend of the court, sustained by the
court, resulted in these being dis
rissed shortly after being called |
Most of the hearing was given over
10 impassioned arguments f,r the
freedom of the press by Mr.. Walsh !,
and strong denunciation of tho mon
If the press in this city, by Attorney
Yates.
Attorney Yates, arguing that the
:sual $50 fine would be no punish
tlent for MIR. Nelson insisted that the
editor be sent to Jail.
The plain, unambiguous meaning
# the article" said the court, is
hat this court consented to decide
he matter of attorneys fees in a
'ivorce suit as the lawyer dictated
hat this court would pay the lawyer !
nd let the woman starve. This was I
ntrue. i must demand respect for ,
his court and If / cannot command :
aspect. | shall step out" ,
Mr.. Walsh argued that the Star +,
ad published the proceedings in the !
ivorce case as a mere matter of :
ews and told nothing but the truth. ,
81 believe it to be of the greatest \
he declared, "that !
ourts permit the fullest and most
iaborate discussion of all divorce {
ases. No question in modern pro
ressive times has been the subject
more research or brought forth !
ider interest. iJ
rs this not matter that affects o.
le family? Should we leave it to fl
2 squabbled over by attorneys? e
louldn't people know that a woman al
lnnot dismiss divorce suit and go fC
,ck to her husband without first q
lying $50 or 5000 for attorney fees is
a case never tried? q
Shouldn't | be allowed 10 go out es
to the court house yard and tell p
thousand people that. the court r
les that this cannot be done, and -
ouldn't newspaper be allowed 10 cl
II its subscribers the same thing?' Ii
Attorney Yates, in his argument, VI