Richmond daily register. (Richmond, Madison County, Ky.) 1917-1978, 1919-12-18
Richmond Madison County, Thursday Afternoon December 49, 1919
JUDGE HARDIN DID
fine BELLICERENTS

| Some of the parties who were
concerned in the little ( affray
down in the Garrard circuit court
the other day evidently didn't
relish the publicity the Daily
Register gave the affair. Any
WAY, an article appears in the
Stanford Interior Journal of
Tuesday, evidently written or
suggested by one of the gentle
men concerned, which claims the
Daily Registers report was err
roneous in some particulars.
] Now the Daily Register re-
PORTER who wrote the account of
the affair was not present and
did not see 1T, but was given a
graphic description of the entire
episode by one of'the most prom
inent attorneys of the central
Kentucky bar, who was present,
was inside the bar at the Ian
caster courthouse when the fisti-
cuff occurred, heard every word
saw every move and gave the
facts verbatim ct literam as told
by the Daily Register, to its re-
porter. And after the article was
printed the attorney read it and
told the said reporter that the
story was substantially true in
every detail.
AS far as Judge Hardin over
ruling Attorney Puryear's OBJ
lection to the character of At
torney Robinson's speech, the at
torney who told the facts to the
Daily Register said that he did
not hear any such statement on
the part of the Judge, nor did he
hear the Judge reprimand or fine
the participants in the little bout
that day, but the attorney who
told Of the affair left early the
next day and did not learn of the
action taken later in the affair by
the Judge.
The matter is, of course, of
small consequence, and if any of
the participants think that the
Daily Register has done him an
injustice, it is glad to print what
he has to say about that matter
in the Stanford paper, for it has
a high regard for all concerned.
So here's how he tells it:
In the first place after the af
fair had ended, Judge Hardin,
who was presiding, not only
severely reprimanded the at
Etorncys in open court, but also
inflicted on Judge Puryear fine
of $40 for being in contempt of
court for having, called Robinson
liar and fined Robinson $40 for
being in contempt of court for
striking Puryear. Robinson stat
ed that Ebert Calico, the husband
of the plaintiff, whose affections
was alleged to have been alienat-
cd, was not present and had es-
capped all the humiliation of the
trial, while the defendant, Mrs.
Hill, had been compelled to face
curious and tittering audience
and subjected to long examina-
ton and cross-examination by at
torneys and had been Inundated
by the slurs OF the attorneys on
the other side. Judge JPuryear
took exceptions to this statement
as personal reflection on him,
and made an objection to the
court, which was overruled, but
which Judge Puryear did not
hear, and Robinson then con-
tinued his speech and said it was
true that slurs had been cast
against his clients, and Judge
Puryear, standing up at the time
within arms length of Robinson,
stated, It's a lie"
Whereupon, Robinson struck
him and they clinched, and were
separated in few seconds with
out injury to either party, and
the court thereafter reprimanded
and fined both of them for con-
tempt. We think in justice to
the court and to the gentlemen
involved true statement of the
facts should be made as above
set forth. Both attorneys i'm
mcdiately overlooked the in
stance and dropped it, and apollo
gized to the court, protesting that
they meant no contempt OF court,
and renewed their friendship