Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1917-11-10
ENlPT CASES
ARE DISWlS$ED
JUdSe George u. Hundley HcceptS Written Sfate1
mentS=z Counsel for DIR. ID Ou@Las $. Freeman ,
JOhn mitchell, mr., and VIM. Lv Lancasfer< (. s
Esq, not Required to be PreSent==NO
Intention to Reflect upon the Court

Editor John Mitchell, Jr., did not
go to Charlotte c. H., Va, Wednesday,
November Z, 1917 in response 10 the
summons delivered to him to answer
charges of contempt filed against him
DR.. Douglas S. Freeman and Attorney
william l.. Lancaster of Farmville,
Va, by Judge George j. Hundley.
Arrangements had been made with
counsel by cX-Judge Asa d. Watkins
that the answers in the cases would
be sent to him at Farmville and that
attendance upon tho court would not
DE necessary. Editor John Mitchell, Jr.
was represented by Hon. Fl. M.
smith, Jr, of this city and Mr.. Smith
also represented Attorney w. /.
Lancaster in the proceedings.
COULD BE FINED
AND IMPRISONED.
Editor Mitchell had arranged to as.
soclate Attorney, w. p. Allen (color
cd) or Danvi!ie, Va, whan the cns,
came for trial, but this sudden change
III the proceedings upset this ARRANGE
mont and Mr.. Allen was PROMPTLY no.
titled. The order citing all parties
concerned to appear at Charlotte G..
II" va, required them to shcw cause
why they should not be fined and i'm.
pirl 1901 fer th eir cnnduet. III, s,s,blssh
ing the state mcnts ascribed to them
III the newspapers. No retractions
were made by any of the persons
accused as mono we're necessary They
sIcou upon their constitutional rights
ana insisted that the language used
constituted in no sense q contempt OF
Judge Hnndley or his court and was
not intended so to be.
THE TELEGRAPHIC REPORT
The following Geographic report to
the Richmond, Va, News Leader az
plains itself: -
Charlotte Courthouse, Va. Nov. =
Especial. 1.-The contemnt nrocoed
u'ss instituted by Judge George J.
ri"haiey against DR.. Douglas S. FREQ
man. ea1tor or The News Leader, were
dismissed today in the circuit court
Oh Charlotte county. DR.. Freeman did
not appear In person and was not rep.
resented by counsel. The attorney for
the commonwealth read the fomal
answer, mailed from Richmond, where
upon without discussion, the case
was dismissed. :,
me answer sent by DR.. Freeman
reads as follows: -, , l..0'~
rms respondent comes and demurs
TO the rule issued against him as
ABOVE set out, on the ground that tina
same is insufficient. in law and firth
or moves that said r;.le be DISCHARGED
as lmprovidently issued.
And now without waving either
MS demurrer or his motion that tho
rule Dc discharged, but expressly in
slstins upon the same, for answer to
Sstid rule he comes and says:
rms respondent is tho editor Of
inc News Leader, newspaper pub-
lshed In the city Of Richmond. Va
ana held such position at the time Of
the articles set out in said rule.
This respondent was the author OF
the editorial articles set out therajn
and holds himself responsible for the
news article embodied in said rule and
MAINTAINS that he had right as the
eultor or newspaper 10 write and
publish said articles. This respondent
further maintains that no one of said
articles Is susceptible of construc
ton which would place him in con
tempt of this court. Certain it Is
that he did not intend to reflect upon
the personal and judicial honesty Of
the Hon. George J. Hundley, Judge Of
this court.
And now having fully answered,
TINS respondent prays to be hence dis
missed.
DOUGLAS S. FREEMAN
Murray M. MCGUIRE,
Hiram M. Smith,
John r. Lightfoot, Jr.,
Counsel.
1t is understood that Judge Humid.
ley had believed that his personal
and judicial honesty had been assail
cd, and when assured to the contrary
no did not proceed further. No apol-
ogy:, or retraction was made by the
Richmond editor.
The above reply was substantially
the reply Of thu editor Of the
Planet. The cases in the advent OF
adverse decision were to be carried
not only to the Supreme Court OF APP
peals Of Virginia, but to the Surname