Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1824-06-25

-. :. -. FN' -.
RICHMOND, JL M. g5, i824.
GENERAL COURT.
We this day 10, before our readers the O.
pnons ofJudges Dssle and Whites in the cas-.
adjourned from James City Superior Court.
against Mr.. John Dandridge fur = contempt ut
court. IL certainly involves questions Of great
importance to the personal liberty Of the citi-
zen. If the law has been truly expoundpd,
then the question arises, whethes the Legisa-
ture ought not to settle, by some statutory
provisions, the points under discussion-a
no longer leave them To be decided by the
princlples.the maxims and spirit ofihe common
Ia " of England. Can we say that this common
law. in all its features that in case, per-
haps where the due responsibility of the de-
cisions and qualifications of Judge to public
opinion, may he concerned; can we say that
this Common Law is consistent with the feel
ings Of our people, and the genius of their free
Institutions ? Say that summary process
under the best checks which may b. devised,
might be necessary To protect court from
actual violence amidst the actual administra
ton Of justice, yet can these extreme eases
justify the large sweep that is taken in the doc
trines Of these opinions-doctriues, which
seem to he borrowed from English authority,
without regard to, or modification by .he spirit
OfOur own institutions? Are we prepared to
subscribe tn SO extensive an exercise nf au-
thoriiy by Judge in his own case exercising
his own discretion, without The usual checks
of appeal, Of Habeas Corpus. or of jury trial
We respectfully repeat the opinion, which
we have more than once expressed that one
Of the great errors Of our Judicial tribunals, is
the attempt to answer all the arg um.nts of
ingenious counsel thus travelling out of the
record, instead Of combining their decisions Ia
the mar ked point before them. l, is enough
perhaps, to decide one thing at IA time-,nd
not To wawder out Of the record, to decide "a
hole series ofproposiions at once, the i'm
portance of which cannot be adequately fore
sren-and most of which may not be relc-
want TO the point in issue.
The conclusion Of Judge Whites Opinion is unavoi,a
bly, postponed ill our next
JUDGE DADE'S OPINION.
The Commonwealth e.. John Dnndridge.
THIS Is a case adjourned to this court by
the superior court of law for thu. county of
James City, and City of Williamsburg The
facts are the Seat the last fall term Of that
court, on the second day Of the term, and
about the hour, to which the Judge had, IN tn.
preceding evening, adjourned the court, as III,
Judge was going into the court house, he met
the defendant on the steps. The Judge
saIuted the defendant in the usual manner ::
upon which the defendant said, that he did
not speak To any person who was 80 corrupt
and cowardly as To attack the character Of any
man SD entirely defenceless az ms was, when
ii was attacked by the judge in the trial of
cause depending ON that docket. The cause
alluded To appears to have been one instituted
40 hal II 2y.. nf V,It r.,
OF j. w. .Murdaugh vs. Burwell Ba.s.tt, "a
security for the defendant in bond, which he
had executed to the Mayor and Aldermen of
Williamshurg--in which verdict had been
rendered at the preceding term Of that court,
and which stood in the docket for trial at tn.
then present term. Immediately on opening
the court, the judge mads statement of these
facts in writing, and caused the afiida,its of
several witnesses To the same effect 10 be taken:
and, the defendant being present, rule was
made on him, rrturnable un the morrow, {" To
show cause why he should not be committed
or fined for his said contempt-and enter into
recognizance with security for his good
behaviour in such penalty, and for such time,
as the court should adjudge." On the following
day ,hs defendant did appear and was recog-
nized to appear the next day, TO answer such
al the court should pro-
pound to him touching his supposed contempt.
and further to appear at The mex, term to abide
the judgment of the court. Onihe n.rd day
the defendant appeared in discharge OF rs
recognizance, as is said, and thereupors certain
were propOunded to him by The
Attorney for the Commonwealth, to which he
and admitted the words, and their
aliisloD in the fullest G I. eDt as stated above.
In this state Of the case, at the instance of
the defendant, the following question. were
adjourned TO the general court.
LIST. Doe, the attack made on the Judge of
this court, and what appears by the evidence
in the record 10 have been made, amount to
contempt Of the couft--if so, may the
defendant be- committed or fined for the
cOntempt-?"
?. "Ought-arule for an attachment, or an at
tachinsnt to be- awarded against him ?"
.. IL the defendant has committed a con-
tempt, has he plugged himself thereof by
his answers 10 the iuterrOgatores ia this
cause 2"
q. What ought to be the judgment of the
court III tins case ON the facts appearing on
the record ?"
And filthy, all other questions, &c.
II The Judges, in the discharge Of their OFF,
cal duties, could permit themselves to be IN
nuenc+d ny personal considerations, they
might drplore The occur renee of this case
They cannot but feel il n delicate and inyidious
task to define and decide upon tile extent of
Their own powers, nor be ignorant, that the
Judgment they are called upon To render,
may expose them on the one hand To the i'm
putation OF iimIdity aud rresoiuiion, or on
sne other, 10 That Of us'rpaiion and tyranny