Imperial Valley press., 1926-01-23
Sentence Parks
To 5-Day Term
With $500 Fine
(Contiued from page y

Z tiONIllbu lIUIu PoSV -
fact that he was conducting the
prosecution on behalf of the Tape
rial County Bar association, not
withstanding claims of Parks com-
sci that he (HortonA did not repre-
sent the bar association.
Parks took the stand following
Horton. and in reply to questions by
his counsel he denied that there was
any malice i'm his intentions when
he wrote the editorials in question.
He also denied that there was any
intent on his part to influence or
attempt to influence or embarrass
the decision of the court.
Slight Legal knowledge
He admitted that he has little
knowledge of legal procedure and
he was not aware that the case
about which he was writing was not
legally finished at that time. He
asserted that his information ON the
trial WAS obtained from the other
newspapers of the~valley and street
conversation and that he had not
consulted legal counsel while writ
ing or before writing. the editorials.
1t was nearly : clock when the
cour+ recessed for dinner, with the
statement that the case would be
resumed at at s 90 clock. 1t was
nearer $50 when court reconvened
and Attorney Horton opened the ar
suments in the case. He severely
arraigned Parks. contendng that
the latter knew he was committing
contempt when he wrote the editor
ialS, as he even went SO far rs to
include the phrase If this be con
tempt. : in them. He asked the
court To find the accused guilty.
Makes Strong Plea
Attorney Seymour made a strong
plea for his client, admitting that
the latter 5 language was intemper-
ate but he asserted the question to
be decided by the court was wheth-
er or not it was Parks intention I
influence or euEarrasS the court.
lie asserted that Il man of Judge
Thompson 5 ability could net have
been influenced by the editorial
even though it appeared in every
in Imperial Valley and
California : -Ne "dit"'
ials were not written with the in
tentioH of intl@sfJr4aa ;nv .oarg,
thcn. lie argued. tEc charge against
the client should be dismissed.
Attorney FiU2ev made a brief al
dress to the court n behalf Of
Parks and Attorney Perkins closed
the arguments by producing proof
that it is the duty Of the district
attorney to protect the courts aud
tnat il was therefore his du& aS a
member of the district attorneys
staff to be connected with the pres
cnt trial. He condemned the
statements in Parks editorial il
strong language, declaring that if
such statements were allowed to hc
made promiscuosly and 90 mchal-
1enged. they would undermine every
court in the country.
In passing Judgment on Parks.
Judge Thompson, against whom IT,"
reference to the specific act. simply
stating that the editor had been
found guilty and naming the sen
tence of the court.
\ the conclusion of the court :
statement, Attorney Seymour re
quested the stay Of execution, which
the court granted Tor Il period Of
10 days on the editor.s own rccog
nizance. during which time the sum
of $4,000 must be deposited to guar
antee his surrendcs TO serve his
sentence, or his further appearance
in court.
There is no appeal from the de
cision of the court, according to At
torney Horton. though the su-
preme court can decide the
question Of the court 5 jurisdiction
in the matter and penalty imposed.