District Attorney Joseph E. Generelly
DDGGAN'S COURT . METHODS ATTACKED, The District Attorney's Offioe Claiming the Sight To Call Cases in the Order It Deems Best Is the Interests of Justice, Which the Judge Denies. Some or the -Matters Which Hare Led to the Clash of Authority. Yesterday Judge Baker ordered a rule taken against Judge Duggan by Assistant District Attorn y Generelly. The following Is a copy of the rule: "Joseph E. Generelly vs. T. J. Duggan, Judge To the Judges of the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans. The petition of the state of Louisiana In relation of Joseph E. Generelly, assistant district attorney for the parish of Orleans, with respect represents that rel-.tor Is the duly accredited representative of the state of Louisiana, and as sueh claims the right to call the cases In which the state Is Interested In the order in which he deems it advisable to the ends of Justice. "That T. J. Duggan, judge of the first city criminal court for the parish of Orleans, denies relator said right. That this honorable court has supervisory jurisdiction over the city criminal court, and in the exercise of said jurisdiction has the "ight to determine the question at issue. Wherefore, relator prays that the said T. J. Duggan, judge, be ordered to show cause on the day of , 1899, why Joseph E. Generelly should not conduct prosecutions In the name of the state In the order In which said prosecuting officer aeems advisable to the ends of justice." Judge Duggan. hearing of the rule, sent In to obtain a copT of the rule, and Minute Clerk Flotte accommodated him by sending uie original to the city criminal court. When the copies had been made Judge Duggan sent the papers back with the message to Mr. Flotte that he would not accept the service of the papers. Minute Clerk Flotte had not asked htm to do so, but only lent him the papers as an accommodation. Up to a few days ago Assistant District Attorney Gill represented the state In Judge Duggan's court and had done so ever since the court opened. The rulings of Judge Duggan were remarkably mild, and not always In keeping with the generally accepted views and Ideas of those well versed In criminal law. lie was prone to place very light punishment upon heavy crimes, and In cases where bond was required to Insure the appearance of culprit or criminal, the amount was ridiculously small. Yesterday morning only three" cases were up for arraignmentDaniel Warfleld, for petty larceny, a possible penitentiary offense; Richard Cannon, for breaking and entering and petty larceny, unquestionably a penitentiary offense, and Mary Butler, assault and battery, simply a misdemeanor. The parties pleaded not guilty and were placed under bonds, Warfleld $50, Cannon $100 and the woman under $250 bonds. The charge against Warfleld was stealing three pairs of shoes, and the Judge predicated the amount of the bond asked upon the value of the articles stolon. A similar rule was followed In the case of Cannon, who was charged with smashing a show case and stealing some trifling articles, but if he were convicted he would necessarily (under the law) be sent to the penitentiary. Another grievance against Judge Duggan Is that he fixes cases to suit his own convenience, irrespective of the wishes or convenience of the prosecuting officer, and Is waverlnsr and weak in his decisions, and procrastinating. Cases coming up before him on trial are taken under advisement, and when decided, are practically lost sight of. When the officers of the criminal court asked for papers or records they were either refused or told that the Judge had them in his pos- eWhen Mr. Generelly was transferred from Judge Otero's court last Wednesday he at once set about prosecuting cases with his usual vigor and zeal, but found a stumbling block In his way In the fixing of Important cases. The Judge abrogated' to hlmVelf the right t0 fix cases and tne asiusiuv ' J thought the district attorney s office, be-lne the prosecutor, had a say In the matter, and this was the reason the rule was taken yesterday.