The Washington times., 1914-06-18
N'LACHLEN WITNESS
BEFORE INQUIRY
Records of Two Cases Made
Subject of Inquiry by House
Board.
Continued from First Page.)

Eive?''
He said the young lady who took ths
that he did not know whether he gave
III the charges as taken down"
Did you ever hear of any other cast
where the charges and prayers were
asked to be made in serics?" asked
Congressman Beal.
That is the practice
To present them as separate re-
quests or in one prayer"
TO present them as separate re
quests
WAS there any discussion betweer
the opposing counsel and Justice Wright
about the prayers"
Would Not Consent to Change.
Il don't recall Just what it was, but
remember the justice refused the
prayers as a series"
What were the details of the objec-
tions OF Justice wright"
we prepared the bill of exceptions.
and the court said he would not Con-
sent TO the charge to the jury going in.
and he rejected the prayers as series. IS
IF the prayers were offered in a
cries they would have TO be rejected as
a series?'
Yes. sir
IF offered separately, it would be
nc duty Of the justice to pass on them
Separately?"
Yes, sir
Were they offered as series or
Individuality" interposed Congressman
Nelson.
Il cannot recall positively
Chairman Mccoy and the witness then
engaged in a series of questions and
answers dealing with the practice of
attorneys and justices in the matter
Of prayers for special instructions to
he jury. and exceptions, and Mccoy
then asked:
Did you at any time make an OBJ
iection to these charges?''
II believe they were refused before
| had an opportunity.
AT the time they were presented by
he attorney on the other side YOU paid
no attention to ascertain their i'm
Dort?" asked Mr.. Beall.
Let Them Go.
81 was about to read them when the
Justice announced he refused them.
hen let them 60"
Tou did not hear the opposing
counsel make any objection at the
lime the court refused them?'
Il don't recall any
That was the time to object, wasn't t
Yes. sir
When was the bill OF exceptions
fled?"
Two or three weeks after the trial.
on say Inc charges were leit out.
Yes. sir. I don't think there was
snEthing improper about that The
Justice said he did not know whether
the charges were Just as he gave them. -
You were satisfied the stenographic
report was accurate"
1t appeared TO me as correct as far
SIS my memory serves.'
How about the .,harges?'
y thought they We're correctly re-
ncTted. l did not think it would have
rfr u
"oInc of the case hal the charges GonI
the Court of Appeals. 7 had no OBJ
sCtions TO their Going IN"
Came For Practice?
Attorney Darlington asked the wit
7ess il the Young lady who took the
ostimOny in the case had not been
= rhc court room merely for prac-
'rCe in stenograpny
Did you ever know her to be en-
n'oyed by any lawyer" asked Mr..
arlington.
No" answered the witness. 81 said
he was not employed by us"
Is II not fact that she is study
x stenoErsphy and comes into the
y DO not know"
I will state to the committee" said
" Darlington. that 7 see this young
aoy iu the court room constantly
no have never known her to be cm-
IcNcd by counsel I do not say this
~ criticism OF her. however"
Nr. Darlington asked IL Nr. McIach-
~ knew that Justices the1rselvy- i.cpt
record Of the ex x:cptiOns made curing
trial, and received IN affirmative re-
n" voU know Of any Law or rule
asked. that requires 4 justice TO
r'"' steno2rapheT's notes"
No" answered Mr.. ScT.achIcn.
hairman .fcCoy intcrruDtcd 70 sav
h7t law ought to be passed .oUuiring
'd-cs 10 accept s;EnOrra Phic iran
rTiHts except in cases where motions
''erc made rint to accs7t cnd the matter
1= threshec cat a. % disp;Ited noints
How much was involved in THIS case
- 1io"th ~. Simns?' asked Nr Oar
0-tor.
''Fitty-f-e dollars" said Wr. McI.ach-
Was any exception tatken to the
Hsrge in the Booth -Shnms case at the
me-
y did not except"
DID you hear cf any one excepting"
do not remember H..
Discuss the Law.
Chairman Mccoy, after questioning the
7iln"ss and Mr.. Darlington r. ga riding
ne law and practice in the District re-
2srding exceptions. said that IL was
"bNiously bad law that required an
"Aosption TO be made at the time of
al He said 4 case might 10 10 a
luTT OF an erroneous theory of cons-ruc-
ion, and yet, if a man lawyer Va.
"ot astute enough to take an exception
~ the time, ne would lose his rights
"ecsTFe Of that lack Of diligence.
Congressman Beal asked IL Mr.. Nc
I8chien had had any other case before
Justice Wright, and il he had any COM
rlalnt relative thereto.
hr. McLachlen said that in 1910 ne
'Tled the case Of Herschell vs. Iowa
apartment house, suit for persona!
pemages, and that Justice .. right lsd
hanged a word In the charge. He as
serted that Justice Wright ORIGINALLY
l"lo the jury that would occasion yoiI
10 examine the question Of whether the
.snIt OF the plaintiff himself directly
occasiomsd the injury"
MIR. MCLachlen, who -presenteJ the
APARTMENT house, said that the tran
script Of the charge was made by Jus
dee Wright to read Contributed TO the
injury instead Of "Occasioned the in
jury
Mr. McLacfilen said he thought this
change was prciudicial TO mis- case but
hat, when he took the matter up with
Justice Wright. the Justice told him
that il made no difference about the
-teuOgraPher's notes. that he used the
word "coniribu;ed'
Congressman Beall said he did not zee
there this made much difference TO the
defendant, but Mr.. McLachlen argued
ihst there was greater burden OF
proof upon the defendant before the
change than afteTward. and that the
word should have been included in the
record. as il was used before the jury.