Jasper County Democrat, Volume 13, Number 8, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 4 May 1910 — LAWYERS WIN CONTEMPT CASES [ARTICLE]

LAWYERS WIN CONTEMPT CASES

Judge Hanley Could Only Discharge Them on Answers. THE WORST MUDDLE YET,

As Answers of Sheriff and Attorneys Are Crosswise, Although the Same Attorneys Prepared Both Answers. —Attorneys Say They Did Not Advise Sheriff, While Latter Says They Did.

The contempt cases against George A. Williams of Rensselaer and M. M. Hathaway of Winamac, attorneys for C. L. Bader, head of the Winamac Bridge Co., who was convicted of graft at the February term of the Jasper circuit court and sentenced to from two to fourteen years in the penitentiary, came up for hearing Saturday. Attorney Hathaway telephoned. over until Monday, which was done, and had not had time to look after the matter sufficiently since his return, and asked that the case against him be continued until Monday, which was done. The case against attorney Williams was taken up and on the showing made in his answer he was discharged, the court not being permitted under the law to hear any evidence other than the answer in proceedings of this kind. The actions against the attorneys we?S taken on the sworn statements made by the sheriff in the contempt proceedings against him, in which he said he had been advised by attorneys Williams and Hathaway that he had five days in which to convey the prisoner to the penitentiary. The attorneys in their answer deny that they so advised him, and there you are: In a few remarks made by the court in reply to this five days time alleged to be allowed, the latter said that the law allowed only such time as was absolutely necessary to convey his prisoner to the penitentiary without delay. The anwers of both attorneys are almost precisely the same except that Mr. Hathaway admits that he visited Governor Marshall to secure a reprieve or parole, which, of course, he had a right to do. L When Mr. Hathaway’s case came up Mopday he was also discharged. .We copy below the material parts of the answers of both the sheriff and Mr. Williams, which were both prepared by attorneys Williams, Foltz and Halleck: SHIRER’S ANSWER. “That on the evening of March 9, 1910, and after the affiant had received said mittimus and while he had said Charles, Bader in his custody at the Jasper County jail, George Williams and M. M. Hathaway, attorneys for said Charles Bader, called on said Bader at the said jail. That said attorneys advised affiant that he had five days within which to deliver the body of said Charles Bader t,p the Indiana State Prison at Michigan City. That "affiant relied upon what said attorneys told him and believed in good faith that he did have five days within which to deliver the body of the said Charles Bader to said prison. And that said attorneys also at said time dnd place advised this affiant that they were going to make an effort to have the governor issue a reprieve to said Bader pending his appeal to the supreme court of the State of Indiana. That said attor•neys, as well as said Bader, also advised this affiant' that the said Bader had business matters at his home in Winamac, Indiana, which he desired to look after and close up before being taken to said prison. That, said attorneys also at said time add place advised this affiant that the Governor of Indiana had the power to grant to said Bader a reprieve pending his appeal to the supreme court; and that this affiant believed from what said attorneys told him that the said Governor did have the power tp grant such a reprieve and believed that said attorneys were going to make a good faith effort to have said reprieve granted. *, * ♦ That on Friday, March 11, 1910, George A Williams, attorney as hereinbefore mentioned;

was in WinamSac, Indiana, on business and whlle’.there. the said Williams told affiant that an effort was being made to have the Governor to grant said reprieve .hereinbefore referred to, and that said Williams at said time and place told affiant that unless he, the affiant, received > word or orders from the Governor that he, the affiant, should take said Bader to the State prison not later than Saturday, March 12, 1910.” - WILLIAMS’ ANSWER. “That affiant and said Hathaway had a conversation with said Bader at the residence of& the sheriff and in the presence and hearing of the sheriff. That this, affiant told said Bader that an effort would be made to have the Governor of Indiana grant a reprieve or parole to said Bader pending an appeal of said cause to the supreme court. That this affiant did not then or at any time before or after said conversation ask or request the said sheriff to take his prisoner, Charles Bader, to Winamac, Indiana. That this, affiant did not then or at any time before or after said conversation ask or request’ the said sheriff to delay taking said prisoner, Charlo Bader, to'the penitentiary. That said sheriff did on the evening of March 9, 1910, ask this affiant and said Hathaway how much time he, the sheriff, had in which to take the said prisoner to the penitentiary and that this affiant replieci that, it was his understanding that the statute said that the prisoner must be conveyed to the penitentiary within five days, and that it was affiant’s understanding that the statute did make such a provision and is still affiant’s understanding of the statute, and that he made such statement in good faith. And this affiant says that he never at any time advised or requested the said sheriff to absent himself from his duties as an officer of the Jasper Circuit Court and that he never at any time advised or requested the said sheriff to remain away from Rensselaer or from the Jasper Circuit Court. That this affiant never at any time advised or requested the said sheriff to keep and hold the said Bader at Winamac, Indiana, or elsewhere, until an effort could be made to have the Governor grant a reprieve to said Bader. That this affiant did not at any tiriie counsel or advise the conduct of said sheriff as alleged and set forth in the affidavit’and information. “And this affiant says that he did not at any time advise and counsel the course of action of said sheriff as set forth and charged in the affidavit and Information herein, but on the contrary, on the 11th day of March, 1910, this affiant went to Winamac, Indiana,- for the purpose of trying a lawsuit in the Pulaski Circuit'Court, and after arriving at Winamac learned that the said sheriff was there with his said prisoner; that after affiant completed his work in said court he saw the said Lewis Shirer in the town of Winamac and. this affiant at that time told the said Lewis Shirer that he, the said Shirer, should not take any chances with the law In the performance of his duties as an officer and that this affiant at that time told the said Shirer that if he, the said Shirer, did not receive from the Governor of Indiana some message to the contrary that he, the said Shirer, should on the next day convey and take his prisoner to the penitentiary. ‘‘Affiant says it is true that a reprieve or parole was granted by the Governor of Indiana to the said Bajler pending the appeal of said cause to the supreme court. But' this, affiant says that he had nothing to do with the procuring of said reprieve or in causing the Governor to issue said reprieve. That he never saw the Governor, that he never wrote the Governor and that he never sent ariy message to the Governor, either directly or indirectly, requesting pr asking the Governor to grant said reprieve.”