His Honour's Comment:
Judge Lobingier's written judgment on the case was later handed down and-is as follows:—On this 28th day of July, 1921, this court, at the opening of its session, directed its clerk to read the information in Cause No. 1433, United States v. William 5. Fleming, the respondent having been-committed to this court after a preliminary hearing and being present pursuant to notice. Before the clerk could~start to read, the respondent attempted to file a motion and affidavit for a change of venue. On being cautioned he waited until the information had been read and then, without an-sworing the question what his plea was, he first filed with the clerk and then read in open court the motion and affidavit referred to, a copy of which is attached to this order.
After the respondent had finished reading the affidavit the Special U. S. Attorney, in charge of the case of United States v. Fleming called the court's attention to the scandalous character of the affidavit and asked that respondent be punished for contempt. The court then asked the respondent what he had to say in order to show cause why he should not be adjudged guilty of contempt. The respondent, after speaking for a time, stated that he had prepared a brief on the question but had left it at his office and the court waited while respondent's partner went for the brief. From it respondent argued on the question of a change of venue rather than on the question of his contempt, but he was permitted to speak as long as he desired.
"A Tissve or Farsexoops."'
We shall not befoul these pages by quoting the offending affidavit. It is a tissue of falsehoods from first to last and its contents are the most scandalous and insulting which we have ever known to have been presented to any court. It 1s not confined to the question of a change of venue, but rambles over other subjects. It recites at its close "that the facts hereinbefore set forth are alleged on information and belief," but it states no ground for any such belief and many of its statements relate to matters of which the respondent could not possibly have any personal knowledge as the events with which they are concerned occurred during his absence from the country as the affidavit shows. He states e.g. several pretended interviews, during his absence, with his partners. Why did not these partners, one of whom sat beside him while he read his affidavit, make a similar one? Respondent repeatedly uses the phrase "I am informed," etc, but he nowhere hints at the name of an informant nor presents any supporting statement sworn or otherwise. To call such a screed.''proof" of anything is worse than ridiculous. Of a far less scandalous affidavit "with no attempt to state even the source of that information or origin of that belief" the Supreme Court of California said:
"Tt may not for one moment be countenance that, without supporting facts, lawyer or litigant may wantonly charge
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.