The Washington times., 1922-04-27
KING CAN 7
D0WR0NG,
IS FINDING
Continued from First Page)

CONTINUED from FIRST PageD
conduct of his. office. Twenty-six of
the said attorneys gave Judge Mon-
cure unqualified approval; two at
torneys approved with reservations,
two declined to express an opinion
and one refused absolutely to COM
ment except in two Instances,
namely: That Judge Moncure con-
stantly attended to the business Of
the court and that no evidence OF
dishonesty had been foun1. therefor
the Jury must conclude that Stuart's
charges are not sustained.
Attorney Stuart Raped.
"In the opinion of the jury. Attor-
ney Stuart was actuated by motives
not commendable, 1t being clearly
shown by his own evidence and atti-
tude that hatred, malice and venom
influenced the aforesaid charges and
prompted his Collusion with The
Washington Times. which proved to
be a willing, but dangerous mouth
piece. In considering the charges
published in The Washington Times
we had before us, A. Cloyd GIL, who
was the City Editor of The Times
when the articles purporting to have
been written by Harvey l.. Cobb
were published.
"Gnl testified that the articles
were purposely colored, magnified
and exaggerated, so as to make good
and exciting reading matter, and
that the campaign was inaugurated
purely from a commercial stand
point for the increase of the Circu
lation of The Washington Times
and also to advance his own personal
..lx III 1,.,l a
that he himself had rewritten several
of Cobb's articles with that point
in view, as he had no particular in
terest in the moral condition alleged
to be then existing in Alexandria.
Evidence Of Graft.
"Gill further testified that in his
and Cobb's investigation they could
not find any evidence of graft.
He further testified that the article
appearing in The Washington
Times of January 2S, 1922, was
based upon an interview which
he, Cobb, and a lady had had with
Attorney Oscar Thomas at Nir-
ginia Highlands several months
previous, and that the meeting con-
sumed about three and one-half
hours. Attorney Thomas gave
testimony to the effect that this
meeting did take place, but lasted
only ten or fifteen minutes, and
that the conversation as published
in The Times or-given in Gills les,
timony never took place. Attorney
Thomas testimony was supported
by two other witnesses who were
in the house at the time
Harvey l.. Cobb refused to appear
before the grand jury or in any
manner render assistance, and being
outside the jurisdiction of the court,
we were unable to compel his attend
snce. Mr.. Gill, who was the worker
with Cobb at the time the divorce
evil articles were published, ex-
planned that Cobb was afraid of per
sonal violence should he come to
Alexandria.
1T is the opinion that A. Cloyd
Gill, of The Washington Times. has
branded himself a perverter of the
truth not only by the testimony Of
rebuttal witnesses but by his own
as well.
I'VE examined the bar committed 8
and subcommittee reports and
took up the charges of loose and
irregular practices and fraud.
HairLine Distinctions.
"One of these charges covered the
use by one law firm of affidavit form
in preparing the bill of complaint
instead of using the deposition
form Of questions and answers. To
a layman's mind this is a hair-line
distinction with no difference. In
support of the other charges of
loose and careless practices we
were handed by the bar association
Co>nmittee fourteen cases to ex-
anime all of which did contain
clerical errors such as would be
liable to happen in any business
or profession, but were satisfac-
torially explained to the jury.
'In S,arard to the charge of fraud
havinC peen committed in obtaining
any Of these divorce suits, we have
no way of obtaining any evidence
other than corralling the S07 com
plainants and examining them and
their witnesses as to the falsity of
the testimony given in each case.
This we consider impractical
I'VE were informed that the laws
of the State of Virginia are open