The Washington herald., 1914-07-08
I q
NEWMAN CUSTER
Is Open TO TEST
Justice Gould, Refusing to
Disturb Verdict, Allows
Supersedas Bond.
MAY TRY TO STOP PAY
Injunction or Restraining Order Now
Possible-Home Rule Body
to Lay Low"
MAY TRY TO STOP PAY


Following the refusal Of Justice Ashley
NJ Gould. OF the District Supreme Court.
to disturb the verdict of the jury against
Commissioner Newman in the custer
proceeding. The Washington Herald yes
terday vas reliably informed that prob
ably no attempt would be made on behalf
of the home rule committee TO actually
oust the official pending the decision on
the appeal taken by him.
II was reported on reliable authority.
however. that preparations were under
way outside the committee to contest
every act of the commissioner hence
forth. There was even talk Of suing for
an Injunction to prevent him from get
ting his salary. While lawyers are still
at variance regarding the effeSt Of the
verdict, the concensus Of opinion among
them Is that the judgment entered upon
the verdict yesterday at the direction of
Justice Gould terminated Mr.. Newman $
right to act as commissioner and conse-
quently that any further act by him
would be void.
Previous Acts Valid.
As to his acts previous to yesterday.
the general opinion is that they are all
absolutely valid and binding as acts Of
de facto official. 1t Is contended that
the commissioner Is no longer even a
de facto officer, a real custer judgment
within the letter OF the law having been
actually entered against him
In oyerruling the three motions filed
on behalf of the commissioner by his
counsel. Attorneys Ralston and Richard
son, Justice Gould said the most serious
question to be decided on appeal is
whether any court had the right to re-
view the appointment Of Commissioner
Newman after the President and Senate
had investigated to their satisfaction his
eligibility.
Attorney Ralston contended In arguing
his motion for a judgment for his client
despite the verdict and another in arrest
Of Judgment, that had It appeared from
the evidence that the President and Sem
ate had not gone into that question the
appointment might be reviewed by a
court, but as the matter stood, he IN
sisted. the court had nothing to do with
IL.
Was Up to Jury.
The other motion was for a new trial,
which was overEuled despite Attorney
Ralston's contention that the jury had
not considered the evidence that the
commissioner had not intended to aban-
don his legal residence here when he left
town In 1911. Justice Gould replied that
that was a fact to be determined by the
jury and that since 1t was squarely pre-
sented to the twelve m,n their verdict
should not be disturbed.
The question Of the effect of a super
sedas bond allowed by the court, which
Is still by far the most interesting one
in the whole case to laymen and lawyers
alike. was left open by the court The
penalty Of the bond was fixed at 900
and the court emphasized the fact that
1t could only stay execution OF the
judgment for costs, that il could not
really supersede the judgment This
leaves this question exposed 10 a posi-
BILE test In the courts by anybody who
might care to try II and at any time.
II was stated that the question might
be raised either by suit for an injunction
to prevent the commissioner from acting
further in that capacity or for a re-
straining order to stop his salary.
Former Senator Josehp Bailey. OF
Texas, and Attorney Arthur A. Birney
appeared for William J. Frizzell, the re-
Iator. but the court did not require them
to sneak.