The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1914-02-27

Futile said he thought Mir. Cuumiug1 was simply using this as an nIustra-
 The hearing was suspended while the jury in a theft case came in. The foreman was asked if a verdict was reached.
 what is your verdict, MT Fore man?''
 we cannot agree"
 Surprise was evident on the faces of those in the court room, and the jury was sent back to further con stder.
 MT. Cummings traced the practice Of issuance of bench N1arants under tho state constitution, saying that fts Ian g11age in this respect fs more explicit than in the Bill of Rights Such fs- suance antedates the conetitutiou, but it cannot be recognized prior to the adoption Of the gtate constitutiou. A decision in 1921 was quoted and also the decision of Justice Baldwin in 1908, Church vs. Pearne, which was claimed upset that 1921 deczsaon-
 Judge T1Bttle: Do you hold that fc is necessary to have a. pre1fufnary 4n- quest before a bench warrant 4ss1eE. MT. Curnmings?''
 9'Not at all, replied MT. Ctuurnfnrgs- A bench warrant ds a. useful ad5uso- of the court It brings speedily iTi court a. person suspected Of without a. lot of red tape But I no t7nat a bench nvarrant must be sup ported by ad1davtts or amrmat1on sworn to by the proper of1ceus. to legal. This precaution is the ssfe- gard to personal liberty
 MT. Cumndngs continued to qzsots 1fbera1Iy from decisions on constftu- tiona1 questions and from Ofa1er stats thrown around individuals to pr0tsct them from false arrest In the coMss of hds argument MT. yCun1nniuGB aald that he desired to bring out the poiut that in issuing a bench warrant it VTHg not too much to ask that the ntate's son make am oath that the perEcu named in that warrant on the 1est ot information, at least, committed the crime charged.
 When the arguments were resumed for about thirty minutes MT. Cum nnings continued to cite decisiOns say- ing that courts of nearly every state furnished one or more bearing upon the issue. In conclusion he said that the defendants contention was up- held by the state constltut1on. by tho decision laid down by Justice Bald win in 57th Connecticut, by the fed eraI constitution by federal dec5slous. and by dert4orhs In other 5urigsa9c- tions. and finally by essentia1 jus tfce.
 Judge I4stle asked aEr. cumnniuss how, under his theory a 5uaEe could find probable cause on vl1tch to is- sue a bench warrant Mr. CuminiuE1 in course of answer said that tne courr on the cause.
 MT Judson: You never heard of such a thing as a judge listsninG tr evidence before a warrant is issze1. AEonstrpft@ MT. Cummings, fo the courf, eai1 that a warfant Tnust De aceouseantef by an oath or af7fmation- The oaf1 would mean sworn testimony. rn lhi1 case, there was no oath.
 The court: How do you kno~
 Aar. Cummings; We have no rs- ord of any or any information of auch testimony in this warrant MT. Cummings argued on the lac- of the record, and called attenticu tl a paragraph in the plea which 1el forth that the warrant was fas1sd without sworn testimony. For lnlr reason exhibit A has been filed for the courts information.
 Mir. Judson then began hts reply 5T reading from a statement He El1 that it was false and silly for Dir Cummings to claim that the bench warrant was not issued according to due process of law He declared under
 which the warrant was issued was e. distinct insult to Judge GardineF lGreene and to the state attornsy Judges have issued bench warrants for 2SO years.
 Mr. Cummings use of two and one l half hours for discussion reminds us ] of an adage,'s said MT. Judson, ssthsz I time comes and time goes, but Broth CT Cummings goes on forever"
 T uphold the validity of the war lrant on four grounds.
 For nearly three centuries war rants have been issued by the suDer- for courts.
 f Under sections 14sO and <1481 Of tho general statutes. The statute ez- l lpressIy gives the states attorney frr right tos ask, and the judge of suDerior court to issue bench warrants. I Under the decision Of Justice Ham nnersley, one of the greatest 5urlalr
 the state has had
 Under the cpRnsous oG other able 1lyasts as set forth in SWaft's dtsssl
 .-The reference Of Mir Climmtngs ru I the constitutional amendment is fos I ridiculous to consider, the ameudmerr ..-7ueLnsAA uBoRsss O kTgssTo ssrrc.rs I At 2:35 o'clock Attorney Cumu1ir.ll finished k4s arguments for the EEel1e1 defense and States Attorney Judsou
 began. Tn a written statement to Che
 court in substance he charscterizet Il the assertions of Cummings in s1pDort of his contentfons as fa1ss and silly | and sa1d that he considered 1t an fn- SH1iL 70 DULn CuC SLeitc 1 e-sDAAl-I aI--
 flee and to Judge Greene as Bench
 warrants have been issued for z7C Il years
 Attorney Cumning8 argument for two and a half hours he said. remind -
 ed him of an old adage 'eTIne may II come and time may go but Cuna1l1i1.-s I will go on forever" He had suDDcft- ed the issuance of his warrants ou
 four counts
 1. The precedent Of bench war
 rants being issued by superior court
 judges in Connecticut for nearly 900 years.
 2. Sections 14sO-14s1 of the. gem
 eral statutes vesting the states att0re ney with the right following the r1-
 ceipt of certain information