El Nuevo mexicano., 1917-09-13

and entered thereon.
The court replied that he had not
examined the authorities but would
not require such a motion-and he
did not.
The Learned district attorney OBJ
iected to the filing Of such a motion
and the court said that he did not
wish to interfere too much with the
methods of the prosecutor.
The court then overruled the mo-
ton for q continuance. This alleged
the fact that material witnesses for
the defense, Colonel Cutting, Mrs,
Justine B. Ward, Miguel A. Otero, Jr.,
Chaves Armijo and Francis G. Wilson
were SO far away that after the hear
ing was set 1t was impossible for
them to arrive in time for the hear
ing.
The matter OF hearing the Cutting
case was again preached and the
court stated that it did not wish to be
put in the position of trying a man
who was absent, Colonel Cutting be-
ing In the federal army service. The
defense stated that there was no mo.
ton for q continuance in the Cutting
case and that Mr.. Cutting did not wish
to be put in the position of avoiding
trial while the court was forcing the
New Mexican Printing Co. and Mr..
Johnson to go to trial. The court,
however, insisted on continuing the
case against Mr.. Cutting.
The trial then proceeded as to the
defendant company and editor. Court
records were introduced in evidence,
as to the proceedings in the civil and
criminal libel suits, the alleged pen
dency of which was charged in the
information as giving a basis for the
contempt proceedings. 1t developed
from the records that there had never
been any proceedings in the district
court for Valencia county in the Grim
inal libel prosecution after the same
had been removed to that county
more than a month prior to the al
lodged contemptuious publication;
that there had been no proceedings
in the civil libel case for twenty
days prior to the publication and
none for II days thereafter. Upon
which facts the defense later urged
that under all of the authorities there
was no pending" cause within the
law of contempt.
The state then rested en- its proof
without adducing any proof as to the
intent Of the publication or as to its
falsity in any respect or as to any
connection Of the defendant editor
Herewith although the answer admit
ted that he was editor Of the paper.
The defense attorneys then. pre-
pared and filed a motion to discharge
the rule, which in effect was a mo-
ton for an acquittal. 1t alleged some
thirty grounds Of objections, alleging
the insufficiency of the states case
and the irregularity of the proceed
ings.
Special emphasis was placed on the
refusal of the court to allow proof
of the truth of the publication, in
GLIDING proof of the alleged wig-wag-
ging incident as to which M. G.
Mechem filed an affidavit with the
state board of bar examiners in aid
of the exculpation of M. c.. Spicer
whose disbarment vas sought on ac-
count of the incident. 81 oi!l4
1t was pointed out that the defense
was denied the right to plead. or
prove intent or purpose in making
the publication although the informa-
ton, being the third one filed, ex-
pressly charged the defendant with
intent to embarrass the due admins
tration of justice and influence the
public against the court, to bring 1t
into disrepute and to influence, in
timidate and coerce the court in al
legged pending causes. 1t was pointed
out that under the court rule the de-
PENDANT was not allowed to plead or
prove actual intent in any of these
foregoing respects, but was compell-
ed to undergo conviction without
benefit of proof, the courts state
ment being that he would hear. evil
dence as to intent of defendant only
in connection with the fixing of pun
ishment.
The prosecutor in addressing the
court in opposition to the motion con-
with what appeared to be a
touching plea for clemency for the
alleging that he had enter
a warm friendship for the de-
PENDANT, but what his real meaning
was cannot be asserted in view of
the divergence between this and his
previous action.
MIR. Mason, Of counsel for the de-
tense, stated that in view of the rul-
Of the court, and in view Of the
of all defenses from the
p~leadings, there was but little left
FOR consideration by the court He
expressed his willingness and readi-
ness to present authorities on all
and stated that there were
certain points which in any event he
to discuss.
He stated that there were none OF
he defenses that were not supported
~ decided authority and that most
them were supported by many de-
,ided authorities. He found but three |
,ases, he said, on the precise ques-
ion as to whether the civil suit was
pending cause at the date of pub
ication Of the alleged contemptuous
under circumstances similar
o the case then on trial, but that all
hree held that 1t was not. ~
He also asserted that, under the
ules applicable, the criminal cases
no pending"
He called the attention Q. the court
o the fact that the learned district
ttorney had presented no authorities
0 the contrary and also pointed out
he abundance Of authorities holding
hat tha infant NJ dafordontc o,d +bal