Jasper County Democrat, Volume 13, Number 4, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 20 April 1910 — FINED $100.00 FOR CONTEMPT [ARTICLE]

FINED $100.00 FOR CONTEMPT

In Not Obeying the Court's Order In the Bader Case. ANSWER HELD INSUFFICIENT. */. “Sheriff Set An Example That, if Followed, Means the Substitution of Lawlessness for Law, aind the End of Judicial Control Over the Officers of My Own Court,” Says Judge Hanley In Ruling On Defendant’s Answer. f'he case of the State of iana vs. Louis P. Shirer, riff of Jasper county, who was ruled to show cause why he should not be punished for con-, tempt of court in failure to carry out the court’s orders in the sentence of C. L. Bader, superintendent and general manager of the Winaniac Bridge Co., convicted at last term of court of having filed a false claim against the county in the construction of the Milroy tp., bridge across the Howe ditch, which is familiar to our readers, came up in court Monday forenoon and the defendant was fined SIOO. V Mr. Shirer filed an answer Saturday to the affidavit for contempt, in which he set out that he had no intention of disobeying the court’s orders; that Attorneys Williams and Hathaway for the defendant, came to the sheriff’s residence on the evening after sentence had been pronouncd and had a talk with Bader, and told \jie defendant that he had five days in which to take Bader to prison; that relying on said statement from the defendant's! affcolrneys he took' the prisoner next day to Winamac and allowed- him to arrange his business affairs while parties there went to Indianapolis to see about getting a reprieve of parole from the governor; that he later (Saturday forenoon, we believe) got a telegram from Attorney Hathaway that the reprieve would be granted and on Saturday evening he- got a letter from the governor instructing him not to take the prisoner to the penitentiary until he* (the governor) made some investigation before granting a parole; that temporary bond was furnished, the prisoner released, and Sunday afternoon the latter brought him (the sheriff) to Rensselaer in his (Bader’s) automobile, as charged in the affidavit; that several v days later he .received instructions from the governor, bearing the official seal of the. governor’s office, granting the parole, etc., etc. Mr. Shirer was represented by attorneys Williams, Foltz and Halleck. The Court overruled the answer of defendant and fined him SIOO. In holding the answer insufficient the Court said: “The Sheriff’s answer, in my judgment, does not purge him of the contempt charged in the affidavit. The Sheriff set at naught the verdict of the jury and judgment of this Court by his proceedings as set but in his answer, and absolutely ignored the Court’s authority, and set an example that, if followed, substitution of- lawlessness for law, and the end of judicial control over the'-officers of my own court. t “He with as much reason could refuse to serve a warrant or any other writ. “The Court officers are the real hands of the Court. The Court itself can do nothing without their active support and help. “Officers owe to the Court not merely a passive and apparent obedience to its mandates, but every efficient aid they can bestow to secure 1 respect for its influence and regard for its orders. “In this case I know that I prepared the entry for the clerk in the afternoon of the 9th day of March and sent ■it down to him. About 5 o’clock the clerk came into the Court room and I asked him if he had certified the mittimus to the Sheriff* and hq. said that he had; and I know that the prisoner could have been taken to Monon and thence

to Michigan City by 8 o’clock that evening, or could have been taken the next morning to Hammond on the milk train and over the Michigan Central road, and the Sheriff been home the same evening. But, on the contrary he conveys his prisoner to Winamac and there knowingly holds him while others conspire to defeat a jury’s verdict in this Court. He keeps him there Thursday, Friday and Saturday, and then with a letter or telegram as his authority accepts bond for the prisoner, an authority that no Court in this State has or any other officer that I know of. In other words, absolutely refuses to do his duty as commanded by his commitment, but without a legal reprieve from the Governor, arrogated to himself the authority to release his prisoner, set at naught the verdict of a jury and judgment of his own Court. „ “This Court would be helpless should it permit such things to be done. “According to the answer here in this case the Sheriff received his order under the seal of the state on March 19, ten days' after he should have acted. ' “It is the judgment of the Court that the defendant be fined $100.” Defendant’s attorneys moved for a new trial, which motion was over-ruled. They then asked for an appeal to the supreme court, and were given sixty days to file their bill of exceptions.