Council for Chief Orr announced Saturday morning that there would be no appeal taken from Friday’s decision of Judge W.F. Harding, who found Chief Orr technically guilt of contempt of court and who announced that there would be no fine imposed unless Chief Orr and his counsel decided to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, in which case a nominal fine would be imposed.
A “technical judgment” against Police Chief Walter B. Orr was pronounced by Judge W.F. Harding in the contempt of court proceedings heard Friday afternoon. The court ruled that Chief Orr was in contempt because he failed to hold for the higher court the full allotment of 103 quarters of liquor placed in his possession, after two defendants had appealed from the decision of the lower court, then skipped their bonds.
Judge Harding ignored affidavits and statements as to the dispensing of the whiskey, contending that it was the duty of chief Orr to hold the whiskey for higher court when he knew that it was to be used as evidence.
Expressing surprise at the practice of police officials, court officials and other officers of the law in giving out whiskey on prescriptions of physicians, as brought out during the hearing of the proceedings, the court contended that no one—probably not even a superior court judge—has the right to given an order about liquor other than for its “destruction.” By destroying whiskey he explained that he meant pouring it out.
No punishment was imposed upon Chief Orr by the court, the explanation being made that he had no desire to punish him for a technical offense. No claim was made that the police court head had committed a “willful violation.” The court expressed the desire to emphasize, however, by his decision that officials of the law must obey the law’s mandates specifically.
ORDER NOT RECORDED
After pronouncing the “technical judgment,” Judge Harding asked Col. T.L. Kirkpatrick, council for Chief Orr, if he wished to appeal the case to the supreme court. Should an appeal be taken, the court explained that he would impose a light fine as a case cannot be appealed when no punishment is imposed. He offered to hold the case open until Saturday in order to allow the attorney and Chief Orr to decide in the matter.
After the finding of the judgement, Colonel Kirkpatrick asked Judge Harding if any additional evidence might be introduced which would cause him to alter his decision. Only the producing of records from minutes of the recorder’s court showing that City Recorder J. Lawrence Jones had given specific orders for liquor, naming the persons to receive it, would have any effect on the case, the court said. Colonel Kirkpatrick replied that this was impossible, as an order issued by Judge Jones as specified in a signed statement by the recorder’s court head, was a blanket order and instructed the chief to give out whiskey to all persons producing prescriptions of physicians.
Judge Harding contended that the respondent had failed to give strict account as to where the 63 quarts of whiskey, which were missing from the 103 quart allotment went. Colonel Kirkpatrick held that no attempt had been made to account for it as he recognized the case as bearing solely upon the failure of Chief Orr to turn all the whiskey over as ordered by the court and not a ?? what disposition was made of it. He offered to produce signed statements and affidavits accounting for the full amount if it would cause the court to alter its decision. Such a move would have no effect on the decision, Judge Harding held as he contended that the chief was in contempt when he gave out whiskey which he knew was being held as evidence, regardless of what cause the whiskey went to.
AFFIDAVITS PRESENTED
A batch of affidavits, prescriptions and statements were introduced by Colonel Kirkpatrick wen the case was opened in the superior court room Friday at 2:30 o’clock. Something more than 100 prescriptions, singed by physicians and calling for whiskey, were presented, in addition to statements by Judge Jones, former Public Safety Commissioner George A. Page, W.B. Bradford, assistant postmaster; Dr. J. R. Alexander, superintendent of the Presbyterian hospital; former Sheriff N.W. Wallace, Deputy Sheriff V.P. Fesperman, Bishop John c. Kilgo, Deputy Clerk of Court J.M. Yandle and others.
Statements as to the character, both official and private, of Chief Orr were introduced from between 30 and 40 of the leading business men of the city. Testimonials from Mrs. W.B. Lindsey, president of the local W.C.T.U., and a federal revenue official as to the persistency of Chief Orr in enforcing the prohibition laws were also presented.
Colonel Kirkpatrick based his claim for the dismissal of the proceedings against Chief Orr on the ground that it was physically impossible for the chief to turn over the full allotment of 103 quarts of whiskey to the court because he had only 40 quarts remaining in his possession. The respondent’s counsel contended that a man could not be held in contempt of court for failing to do a physical impossibility. The colonel hinged his case on this point and argued at length, citing numerous passages from Supreme Court decisions tending to bear him out in the contention.
TOUCHED ON “REPORTS”
Colonel Kirkpatrick touched on recent activities against Chief Orr and to street-corner whispers and rumors as to the manner in which he had been conducting his office. He declared that the police chief had been forced to withstand the villifications of certain men because of the stand he had taken in the past. He sought the dismissal of the case against him in order that the finger of scorn might be pointed at the villifiers and enemies of the chief, whom Colonel Kirkpatrick held to be an efficient officer.
Solicitor George W. Wilson, replying to the hour or more of argument by Colonel Kirkpatrick, contended that the chief was in contempt when he allowed whiskey which he knew was being held as evidence to leave his possession. Police officials and other officers of the law must obey the law’s mandates, otherwise they will not command the respect which they should have, the solicitor contended.
He expressed regard for Chief Orr, but declared that it was his duty to prosecute the case to the extent of his ability, and to bring out the facts which held placed the police head in contempt of court.
Judge Harding made a talk of perhaps 10 minutes in announcing his decision. The apparent tendency of court officials and officers of the law to give out whiskey on prescriptions of physicians was held by the court to be in direct violation of the law. He read a passage prescribing that whiskey should be “destroyed.” He emphasized that the only way in which it would be destroyed would be to pour it out. Counsel for Chief Orr had intimated that whiskey might be considered as “destroyed” when it was taken from retailers and placed in the hands of the law.
SUPERIORS WITHOUT RIGHT
In answering the claim of Colonel Kirkpatrick that Chief Orr in giving out whiskey was acting under orders from his superiors, Judge Harding contended that superiors had no right to issue such an order. Colonel Kirkpatrick asked if Superior Court judges did not have the authority, he having introduced affidavits to the effect that Superior Court judges sitting on the local bench had ordered whiskey dispensed to the sick. Judge Harding expressed doubt that they had, although, he said he ordered 20 gallons of whiskey turned over to physicians during the 1918 influenza epidemic. At that time, he said, he made a specific order on the court records, and instructed physicians to personally administer the whiskey.
Had Judge Jones made a recorded order, naming the specific cases in which whiskey was to be dispensed, the claim might have been made that he was within the law, although he doubted that even this proceeding would be strictly legal.
The court room was crowded to capacity when the case was called by Judge Harding. Throughout the three and a half hours consumed in hearing the evidence offered and the arguments of the attorneys, people were jammed into the room.
Considerable interest throughout the state attaches to the case by reason of the reported tendency of court officials and others to dispense whiskey on prescriptions of physicians or to turn it over to hospitals. Evidence introduced during Friday’s hearing indicated that Chief Orr had been acting upon a precedent of long standing at the city hall, and one which had existed for years throughout the country.
ORDERS CITED
Colonel Kirkpatrick cited the order issued by the secretary of war during the influenza epidemic turning over whiskey in government warehouses for use in army hospitals. Statements of Sheriff Wallace, Deputy Sheriff Fesperman, Deputy Clerk of Court Yandle and others stated that it had been customary for whiskey to be dispensed to hospitals and individuals on prescriptions.
Many favored sending the case to the supreme court in order that the higher tribunal might render a decision in the case, thereby giving emphasis to specific regulations governing the handling of contraband whiskey by court officials.
The affidavits on the character of Chief Orr were signed by men who said they had known him for various numbers of years, ranging from five to 25. Those giving affidavits as to his character were Wade H. Harris, J.C. Patton, B. Rush Lee, Frank Alexander, D.L. Probert, J.A. Durham, J.A. Fore, W.C. Dowd, C.W. Johnston, A.J. Beall, T.T. Allison, J.H. Wearn, F.B. McDowell, Rev. J.A. Sharp, W.R. Robertson, E.D. Latta Sr., W.W. Watt, A.T. Summey, W.H. Twitty, Joseph Garibaldi, Dr. C.A. Bland, T.W. Wade, J.W. McClung, J.E. Murphy, J.H. Little, C.L. Black, C.W. Parker, W.C. Wilkinson, J.A. Stokes, E.C. Marshall, T.E. Hemby, James A. Houston and Sterling Graydon.
From the front page of The Charlotte News, Saturday evening, May 28, 1921
No comments:
Post a Comment