Evening star., 1926-05-02

TON, d. c., MAY 2,
to accept any share Of the surety fee.
On this latter contention the Su.
preme Court reversed the action OF
the Court Of Appeals, but Justice NC
Coy claimed that the Supreme Court
sustained the action OF the lower
court on the points on which he sub
| mitted 1t for the record. This was
allowing 10 per cent on the income
and per cent on the principal.
Fee Varied With Amount.
Mr.. Gilbert insisted. Didn't you
allow Fenning 10 per cent on both in
come and principal?" He also asked,
did you ever knowingly allow Fen
ming more than 10 per cent? Justice
Mccoy explained that the larger per-
centages were allowed where small
amounts were involved.
Mr.. Gilbert then questioned Justice
Mccoy, referring to case in Which
Attorney Daniel w. O'Donoghue had
objected regarding the appointment or
Edward Stafford as guardian ad litem,
and Justice Mccoy said he thought he
had appointed him. Mr.. Gilbert also
questioned the witness regarding pro-
where the property was taken away
from her while she was in Cincinnati
on q visit. She had $4,000 In bank
and owned real estate in the DIS
trict, Mr.. Gilbert stated.
When she came back the funds had
been seized and without notice q re-
ceiver had been appointed for the
property, he stated, calling it IAN out
rageous proceeding" and asked Justice
Mccoy, do you take plaintif's s
statement of facts as facts without
any investigation and then proceed?"
Mr.. Gilbert then questioned Justice
Mccoy regarding case discussed by
Representative Newton at the morning
hearing, in which an attorney friend
of Mr.. Newton was facing contempt
proceedings in the District Supreme
Court for having sought to inter
vene in a pending case to which he
felt his client should have been a
party.
Asks HOehling Be Heard.
Justice Mccoy answered that Gus
tice Hoehling is here ready and eager
to testify. There are other facts be-
yOnd what the committee has been
told. but l prefer to have them related
by some one who knows. rather than
| on hearsay, testimony such as l would
give"
Mr.. Gilbert wanted to be informed
whether 1t is the practice here to
allow property to be taken away with
out a hearing or notice to the defend
ant. Justice Mccoy explained that
in many cases 1t Is very necessary
that a temporary receiver be ap-
pointed promptly on notice and he
cited a case in which several carloads
Of cabbages might be on a railroad
siding and receiver would have to be
appointed to dispose of them before
they would rot and be a total loss. Mr..
Gilbert asked whether a bond would
be required, a receivers bond, before
he took over the property.
Don't you have a bond to cover
damages under a receivership If the
receiyership should not have been
granted?" he asked
Justice Mccoy answered that the
rules say there must be IAN undertak-
ing" which is the legal phra seology
in this jurisdiction tantamount to
bond. Mr.. Gilbert insisted that there
need be no particular haste in the
case of a lunatic, commenting that
'it isn't cabbageS that are at stake. "
Says Loss Might Follow.
Justice Mccoy argued that prop.
erty might disappear"
When Mr.. Gilbert was asking JUS
tice Mccoy regarding a sworn state
ment which he held in his hand
Justice Mccoy asked for the name Of
the attorney making the sworn state
ment, and was told it was Attorney
Crandal II. Mackey. testifying under
oath before the same Gibson subcom-
mittee. With some asperity Justice
Mccoy stated, What I am asked to
do is to state whether what an at
torney testified is the practice OF the
court when l don't know whether he
told the truth about the record in
the case"
Here Mr. Houston protested against
"retrying cases here that have been
settled in court" He declared that
I'VE are not here to convict Justice
Mccoy"
To this Mr.. Gilbert sharply an
swered, II am here to get the facts
and / propose to get what facts l
can from Justice Mccoy"
Chairman Gibson then supported Mr..
Houston, saving: I'VE are not here
to convict or try Justice Mccoy. We
are here to get the facts that may aid
in legislation to correct improper con-
ditions that may be found to exist"
Witness Answer Is NO"
Mr.. Gilbert then said: "Mr. Hous-
ton hasn't any conception of what /
am after and l doubt If the chairman
is clear on it. l don't care about the
facts in the Morris case. / am inter
ested in learning if such a condition
exists that allows such things to be
done l want to find out if, when a
person goes away on visit. some one
comes along who doesn't like the alb
sentee or wants to get hold of the
property. can come in and claim the
absentee Is a lunatic and get the estate
turned over to trustee Justice Nc
Coy answered NO" that this could
not be done.
Mr. Gilbert then questioned, "Does
the practice in this Jurisdiction allow
any person to be declared a lunatic
whether he is away on visit or with
out notice or hearing?" He wanted
to know if "any person can be put in
st. Elizabeths without an order from
the court?"
Justice Mccoy corrected him by
saying that 1.-The court does not issue
orders sending them to st. Eliza
beth's." He said that action in the
case under discussion probably was
ito preserve the state of assets" Mr..
! Gilbert said that the condition was
testified to by reliable lawyer at the
| hearing before this subcommittee
under oath. Justice Mccoy answered: ::
II don't know anything about facts
any attorney stated here. and I don't
assume they are true"
Mr.. Gilbert declared emphatically.
Either these conditions do exist or
Attorney Mackey is a perjurer." Then
after a moments thought he added,
"If he came before this committee
and made such a statement under
oath. this is onother mater that We
might look into"