New Britain herald., 1927-12-05
SINCLA|R'S JURY
 SHADOW|NG LEGAL,
 ACCUSED CONTEND
Oil King and Aides Claim Detec- tiYeS Were Hired to See That
 Other Side Did Not Hamper
MASON DAY REQUESTS
 CHARGES BE DROPPED

SAAiAANO AS A1 DANSA AAN Six, Cited to Show Why They Should
 Not Be Held in Contempt of
 Court. Reply With Admission Of
 Trailing Jurors, But Deny Any
 Intention of Spying or Influencing Verdict--Ask Case to Be Dropped. Washington, Dec. P-Haled be- fore the District of Columbia su- preme court today on charges of contempt, Harry F. Sinclair. Will liam J. Burns and their associates insisted they were well within the Jaw in having the jury In the Fall Sinclair oil case placed under sur veillance.
 Henry Mason Day, an official in one Of Sinclairs oil companies said he hired the Burns men to shadow the jury at Sinclair's request, ex- plaining that Sinclair believed an im- proper effort would be made to have that jury return a verdict against Sinclair. Sinclair asked that the case be dismissed for lack of juris- diction.
 The defense contended fl had made no official contacts with jurors but had stood on it's legal rights in endeavorins to protect the interests of the men on trial for conspiracy as result Of the leasing of the Teapot Dome naval oil reserve by Albert B. Fall to Sinclair.
 Almost as soon as the hearings had opened with a denial of guilty 1 by the defense, a recess had to be l ordered to allow the district at | torney's office to study the defend- ants replies and to consider Q ! cour.e of legal procedure.
 Separate Petitions
 Sinclair. Burns. Sheldon Clark, Henry Mason Day, w. Sherman Burns. and Charles L. Veitsch, were 1 the men cited to show cause why they should not be held in con- tempt as 2 result of the shadowing by the Burns men.
 All of the defendants were pres ent when court opened and counsel filed an answer for each. Sinclair 1 was first, Days second, and they were followed by those of the detec- tives. Each asked that the contempt action be dismissed for lack of juris- dction and insufficient facts to es- | tablish contempt.
 Sinclair made general denial Of | any wrong doing in employing de- tectives to shadow the jury, assert ing he had done nothing that con- stituted a crime.
 Sinclair maintains that on the al legations set up by the government | the court was without jurisdiction to find him guilty of contempt.
 Denies Any Intimidation |
 Days answer denied he was in- structed by Sinclair to hire detec- tives 'to spy upon, to bribe, intimi- f date or influence" the jurors.
 The answer said in part:
 The said petition (by the prose cution) does not allege facts show ing or even tending to show that the respondent has been guilty of acts or condpct in any wise impeding or q n iyooy Ia hn I istration of justice.
 This court Is without Jurisdiction to try this respondent or to adjudge him guilty of contempt of this court upon the allegations of said peti- tion.
 The court Is without Jurisdiction to entertain said petition or to make any adjudication thereon, because said petition is lacking in necessary and essential allegations showing of misbehavior in the presence Of the court or so near thereto as to obstruct or impede the due admin istration of justice"
 Day said that he was directed by Harry r. Sinclair to engage the services of William J. Burns inter national detective agency: admits that he was to supervise the activi- ties and receive reports from di~ verse operatives Of said detective agency and forward the same 10 Harry F. Sinclair If this respondent thought It necessary or advisable so to do.