Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1824-06-29

t- - g. { 8. -. 3 y -.
RICHMOND, JUNE 90, 1874.
GENERAL COURT.
CoMsoSwEALrH VS.. JonS DASDRlDeE.
JUDGE WHITES OPINION.
tConeludedl
By these authorities, the following pripci-
pies seems to be clearly and unqueslio nably
established.
1st. That every court of record, and, more
COMPATIBILITY. every Superior Court, has a
rigni to punish contempts offered To it, BY fine
and imprisonment and that this power is Civ
I'm TO those courts, not for the private advar-
'age OF Inc Judges who sit in them, but TO
preserve 10 them " that regard and resnect
which, when once courts of Justice are ,lenr;y,
ed OF, their authority ESQ necessary for the good
order OF the commonwealth us entirely lost
among the people," and that flor that reasool
results from The first principles of judicial
establishment, and must be an inseparable at
fendant upon every superior tribunal.n
Suiy. Ihat these c0ntempts to courts, SO
punishable, may be committed either in the
face Of the court, or in the absence of the party
that Is, the court) SO insulted.
Sdly. That those cOntempts which NAV be
committed IN the absence ofthe party, for reasons
which need NOT now detail, may, among other
things be committed BY speaking or writing
cOntemptuously of the court. or ,nfpes. actin9
in their judicial capacity, or by saving or writ.
ing any thing which is calculated to prejudice
the public mind respecting any suit then de-
pending in court.
4thly. That u this happen TO be done by
a person PIesenttn court, and appears, either
by confession Ofthe party on his oath, or by
the pieto or immediate observation of the
Judges themselves, the court NAV immediate
y, record the crime and commit the offender.
&c. "Ihe process Of attachment being mere
" intended 20 bring the party into court" that
when there he may be dealt with according
~ !au."
5ihly. That, for contempts committed in
the face 81 The court, it may immediately re-
cord the crime, and without any farther ex.
animation commit the party" and for the
hest OF reasons, because the judges have the
highest of all possible EVIDENCE the perseption
OF their own senses.
6tniy. Ii the matters arise at distance of
which the court cannot have 40 perfect q kno,p-
ledge, unless by the confession Of the party, or
the testimony Of others, it will, in its discretion
award the properprocesst to bring the party be-
lore ", OF which thu process of mt is one
7thly. That when the court is i'm possession
OF his body II will, according to the circum-
stances his casr,commit him TO answ or in.er-
and answer them. Upon his answers tn
which inicrrogatories the fate of the proceed
ing will depend: Although he may thereafter
be Indicted FOR perjury therein.
8thiy. That to scandaze court by sneak
ing or writing. either in its presence or in its
absence, Is high contempt and how can a
court be scandaiIzed, except by scandaIiziup
the Judges, or some one Of the Judges. who
SIT IN NJ A court, apart from its Judges, ex
lists only in abstract idea, in CONTEMPLATION of
law, and viewed thus apart from them, il has
not, u cannot have, any moral character to be
scandallzed. Butte its Judges be considered
as corrupt towards, when acting in their Judi
ciai capacity, and ii isinstantly covered win
opprobium and contempt.
9lhiy. That il is a high contempt. pupisha-
bic AS aforesaid, to publish, by speaking or
writlng, any thing during the tendency of
particular cause IN any such court, by which
an I'nputation Is cast upon the Judges, or any
one of the Judges thereof, as to their purity.
imparliality or integrity,as respects that cause
After attempting to avoid Biackstone's posi-
tive declaIati0n, that " a contempt to a cour,
may be committed 10 IFS absence" by speaking
or wiring cOntemptuonsly of the court, or the
Judges, acting in their Judicial capacity, it still
remained TO the defendants counsel to get q
Yer the many other authorities which deci,ca
that contempts, punishable by attachment
may be committed in the absence OF the court
And this has been attempted by epdeayour-
log to coDfne that doctrine to contemn,s
committed TO the process of the court, and a.
ihei like Cases. But what an immense Diff
renee Is there, as respects the great object
which the law had Ia view, in establishing this
proceeding by attachment, between the Of
fences committed by attornies spoken of bv
Blackstone, or that committed by rude and
vulgar man 10 the country, when rule ofl
court was served upon him by, perhaps. the
lowest officer Of the court, and thai here
charged upon the Defendant (? And jf an AZ.
tachment may issue in those cases let coe,non
sense assign reason, if il can, why the DE-.
PENDANT should not be equally responsible in
this case. IforbeT to depict the fatal conse-
quences which would result from a dif.raot
doctrine.
But authorities are introduced which prove
that court may fine and imprison for con-
tempt committed in its face, and cases to prove
that this has often been done; and what then p
Does this shew that court cannot commit
for the like offences perpetrated out of court
Do not Hawkins and Blackstone both, declare
first, that court may commit for contempts in
IFS presence, and having disposed of that point
proceed to state. that it may also fine and impri
son FOR contempts committed in its absence.
ana state what those latter contempts are and
snow how in such case, the court must nro-
ceed The material difference between those
cases sesins to be, that in the frst the offender
being 10 court, and the offence knows IN
ITS members, the court may proceed To in0;c,
the punishment Immediately ,o,thout ann ofber
proceedings. But in the latter, process mus,
issue to put his body In The power of tbe
court, and evidence be urOduced IN s.t;ac.x -