Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1920-04-29
TIMES MOTION
SHOWS ADAMS
CHARGESFALSE
Defendant Says True Facts
Not Presented in Prose
cutOrs Citation.
ASKS FOR DISMISSAL


punish James L. Kilgallen, managing
SSfcor of The Times, for contempt OF
court, today.
The assertions that Adams had not
presented the true facts in his affidavit
Of information and had not presented
facts sufficient on which to base cita-
tions for contempt were made in two
motions to discharge the rules to an
swer, which were filed by Mr.. hhgallens
attorneys, Henry y. Spaan, Samuel Dow
den Of Whitcomb & Dowden and Wal
ter Myers.
Judge Collins said that the fling of
this motion raised a new ISSUE "the
first time ever presented in this court.
Mr. Adams asked for time in which
TO prepare a brief against the motion.
Mr.. Dowden expressed a willingness
t. go ahead on an immediate ruling by
the court.
Judge Collins then declared it would
not be fair to Mr.. Adams to refuse
him time to prepare for the new issus'
and set further proceedings for Satur-
day morning at 0 O'Clock.
Among other things il is asserted in
the motions and in the memoranda
Herewith that Mr.. Adams failed to set
out the facts in regard TO two articles
which he claimed were contemptuous,
so that the court could determine
whether OF not they were false OF
grossly inaccurate; that although he had
knowledge of the facts he nevertheless
charged Mr.. Kilgalen with responsible
itv for the articles when such responsi-
bilfty did not fall on him but on an
other: that he failed to show how the
publications could affect any pending
proceedings in the criminal court, and
tha the. in other ways, failed to COM
ply with the requirements OF the stat
utes relative to informations on which
the court could properly base rules to
answer for contempt
TWO INFORMATIONs
AND CITATIONS FILED.
Two tnformations and citations fol-
lowed the publication in The Times on
April II OF an appeal to the members
of the Indianapolis Bar association 10
demand an investigation Of the state
Ruts made by Charles w. Robinson,
su attorney, to the effect that he had
personally gone before the Marion
county grand jury and examined Wit
nssses in behalf OF his clients. Harry
and Benton Parsons. charged with re-
ceiving stolen goods. and had received
81 900 for his services.
It was stated that Robinson declared
that Benton Parsons was not, thereafter.
indicted and that a faulty indictment
was returned against Harry Parsons
one motion TO discharge was based on
the grounds that the Information does
not set forth facts sufficient TO con-
stitute a contempt, that the citation does
not show that Mr.. Kilgallen had the duty,
power OF authority 10 publish or cause
the publication Of the article, that the
proceeding is not connected with any
pending case in the criminal court and
that no showing is made that would en-
able the court to determine whether or
rot it was a false or grossly inaccurate
article.
NO STATEMENT OF
FACT CHALLENGED.
Attached to the motion are memoranda
IN which the attack on the citation as
insufficient is more particularly defined
as follows:
81. It is not sverred therein that any
~staiement Of fact contained in the al
L. contemptuOus article is false or
Untrue. Charles W. Robinson did, In
fact, make the statement which he Is
quoted as making in said article.
- Said alleged contemptuous article
Is not shown by said information to
relate or pertain TO any pending case,
trial. proceeding or order of court. As
n matter Of fact. the case Of state vs..
Harry Parsons, which the information
alleges IS now pending, is not baseu
on an Indictment referred to in said
alleged contemptuous article. The only
Indictment referred to in said article
Is a certain faulty Indictment which
is shown by the records herein to have
been finally disposed Of and new In
dIctment returned.
"3. The alleged contemptuous article
must be read as a whole in order tn
determfne the meaning and intent there
of. When so read the natural infer
euce and Implication from the state
ments therein IS that the laws Of the
state Of Indiana should be enforced Ia
The following particulars. towit: Attos-
neys practicinc IN Indianapolis should
not be permitted 10 enter the grand jury
room and in the presence Of the grand
Jury. duly assembled for the admins
tration Of justice, examine witnesses Tor
the purpose of preventing indictments
sgainst the clients of such attorneys
and preventing such clients being con-
victed and punished for their crimes.
II the facts surrounding the appear
ance Of Charles ". Robinson before
the grand Jury were shown by said in
formation. it would appear that he was
paid 81 900 for lis services by his clients
said Parsons: that Benton Parsons
was not indicted By said grand jury
and that a faulty Indictment was re-
turned against said Harry Parsons. In
the light of these facts said published
article, when construed as q whole, can
not fairly be given the construction
placed thereon in the information fled
herein by Claris Adams On the con
<srary the fair inference. meaning and
inrent is to prevent permission again
being given to any attorney to appear
before said grand jury and examine
witnesses for the purpose OF preventing
an Indictment against his client.
NO EVIDENCE
AGAINST DEFENDANT.
- Said information is defective and
insufficient for the reason that it does
not set forth facts showing that the de-
fendant herein is the person who pre-
pared. w1otc. printed. published and cir
culated the alleged cOntemptuOus article.
1t is true that said information contains
statement that the defendant. as man
aging editor Of said Indiana Daily
Times did publish said article, but this
statement is a mere conclusion. If the
true facts with reference to the publica-
ton of said article were set forth In
said Information, and the statutes so re-
quire, Ii would appear from such facts
De-