Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1928-02-09
Sinclair Company Official Is
Freed on Motion of
His Attorney. Z
JUSTICE SIDD0NS FINDS r
DIFFERENCE IN EVIDENCE
Testimony Against Prisoner Not
Comparable" With That
Against Others. -

Sheldon Clark. vice president Of the
Sinclair Refining Co, was acquitted Of
contempt Of court today In connection
with the charges involving Harry r.
Henry Mason Day. William J..
Burns and others. growing out Of the
'liadowing Of the Teapot Dome Jury.
In freeing the Chicago oil oficiai
Justice Frederick L. Siddons said: =
Il think the evidence against this
respondent is not comparable With II1e
evidence against the others. I couIo not
convict sou OF contempt Of court and
send you TO prison. because ! have not
been convinced beyond a reasonable
doubt that you are guilty of contempt"
Mr.. Clark, who came here as a char
acter witness for Sinclair during the
conspiracy trial, walked out Of the
courtroom free man and received thu
congratulations OF friends In the corrt-
dor outside. Justice Siddons' ruling
followed on the heels Of a motion made
by e. c. Brandenburg, attorney for the
respondent, to discharge the rule and
dismiss the petition against Mr.. Clark.
Another May Be Freed.
The acquittal verdict did not occa.
'ion any real surprise. despite the sweep.
ing decision OF Justice Siddons yester-
Gay IN refusing to dismiss the Contempt
charges against the six respondents ON
the ground that the jury surveillance
which had broken down the Teap0t
Dome trial had IAN obstructive tend
ency."
The favorable decision indicates sim.
liar action by the court with respect
70 the charges against Charles L.
vietsch. manager Of the Baltimore
branch OF tie Burns agency.
Justice SiddonS declared in his rul-
ing dtsniissing the petition against Mr..
Clark that lit seems TO me that his
connection with the undertaking might
be described as casual and accidental
This Is not 70 say he may not have
known OF the undertaking carried On
by the other respondents He has de.
MED any share in the undeftsking. but
he may have read and discussed the
reports made by the Burns agents.
If Mr.. Clark had considered the IN.
dertaktng unlawful you may say he
should have disclosed IL % the propef
authorities. II. however. he thcuShk
the undertaking lawful and his connec.
jun with 1t was only casual and acci-
dental. Il docs not seem he was guilty
Of criminal contempt"
On the basis Of Justice Siddous' rui.
ing OF yesterday, defense attorneys to-
day prepared 20 present evidence and
testimony IN an endeavor to dtsprove
the remaining respondents. Upon leav-
ing the courtroom today Mr.. Clark did
not indicate when he would return 70
Chicago.
Government counsel, In opposing the
motion to dismiss the charges against
the Chicago oil man. claimed there
was undisputed evidence 10 show that
Clark had definite part IN the trans.
action and knew what was being done
by the Burns agency In shadowing the
trial jurors
McMuiiin Record Submitted.
Charles A. Douglas. attorney for the
Burns agency made q separate motion
TO dismiss the charges against viefSch.
but the court suggested that he wait
until after the defense had put In rs
evidence
With these matters disposed Of. d.
tense counsel then proceeded with the
trial OF the case and submitted the
record of William J, Me.
TO spy upon the Burns agents during
the Jury surveillance This record beng
admitted. s, NJ Current. identification
oificer and Keeper OF the records OF the
Ohio State penitensiary. Was called a.
the first witness for the defense
McAiullin alias William " Long, has
admitted on the witness stand that ne
served three months In the Ohio perii-
tertiary for forgery. having been ne
leased on parole on his willingness %
Quit the State Of Ohio instead NJ Scrvs
Ing the whole Of the so-year sentence
Defense Receives Setback.
Defense counsel received another SET
back nj the outset ~ proceedusgs tosI
hen judge Daniel Thew Wright. attore
ney for Henry Mason Day. asked the
court tn set aside It's decision holding
that the Jury surveillance tended 10
abStruct Justice This request waS de-
MED by Justice SiddoilS, who remarked
the court had ruled on the npticn And
did not feel justified In reopening a.
Charles A, Douglas, counsel tor the
Burns Agency, said he reserves the
right to make a motion for dismissal
In behalf at William J Burns and
harleS L, VietSch,
Then MIR nrandenburS presented his
notion To discharge the rule g. dismiss
the petition ~ far ~ MIR Clark IVES
and eeurs settled down Coz
! lengthy argument.
1t seems that the court has held
hat Shadowins merely vas anaAwhaAS
Mr. hrandenhufs coInnenced Mere
Justice SiddonS interrupted tn say that
what he had held MAS that survenlAnee
VI Jury In n criminal case on trial wAS
lnlawf,il."
ClarkS attorney declared there waa
absolutely no evidence % s0pssagt The
shatgeS against the respondents an9
quoted from the answers f,lea With TIE
'ourt by Sinclair, ahSciving Clara ttelzs
my connection with the hurry enpAaH~
nens, and from nay, who diresae1 ths
surveillance, Mr., hranSienearx aa1esf
hat Clark came here setely Is q shAxv
.cter Witness sT MIR sinclair and uc<
N any connectkM With the SaAAaWkng.
These facts, he arsca. sheAsa fetfevN
ne reSIs,deas NJ any reSlNssaearax n
hts matter
OppsSins Ene a,ctksn ~ dssntsA Nstl
aurkiNShaw, assistant district aetaFNeN
'iesMed che evidence IN the cAse xhewed
ssvMd dispute that CLARK had q very
iet,mte part to play N the sranxAstseA
hraaaeaearss CsatsatteA
Mr aranasnenvx had cssnsenaed snAt
Nh client had entered The pietaFN enkY
W three cscastsns he AaMitlpA tna4
,lAfk had acennssApled pAy @ -
hartman Park Hasei wheA lha hsYM
veetved relsaatS froa OhAS,es q mNa<s
N one assaSh.n, On another Mr. C,AFk
MeStitused tyr MI nay and aN q thiF3
'sSaSten he received sealed enveAns
the relests at hlS hesel,
scvwrnMem es'NesNl SIN tAe uNhsH
tcontlnuea IN rage .. tAAl0ma ~