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

and attachment are Dispensed with when the
contempt is committed in the face a. the court.
Let US test the proceedings in this ease d,
these principles. The contempt was commit
ted at the courthouse door Immediately al
forwards, the court ha,in been opened, aud
Mr.. cambridge present, a written statement Of
the facts was exhibited by the Judge. This
had all the effect Of an affidavit as - giving no
tice to Mr.. Dandridge Of the matter ~ ith which
he was charged and az an affidavit was not
necessary for any other purposes than to serve
this end, and inform the court, the statement
was, to all intents and purposes, perfect sub
stitute for it. But the atiidavits Of sundry wit
nesses were at the same time actually taken /;
and thus furnishedthe most formal ground for a
rule. And IN fact rule "tO shew Cause why he
should not be committed or fined for his said
contempt" on the morrow, was
imme diately made. As Mr.. cambridge was
at the same time recognized to appear on the
return Ut this rule, II was more proper that il
should have been in this form, than to shew
cause why he should not be attached, which
would have produced only unnecessary circu-
ity and delay. On the return Of this rule the
defendant appeared, and whether he made no
motion To discharge it, or an unsuccessful
one, does not appear. He was ruled to APP
pear the next day 20 answer interroga,Ories.
Had the attachment been awarded ON the sc.
cond day, nothing would Have been wanting
tn the most perfect regularity of proceeding
but the fOrmality of entering an order that the
rule to shew cause should be made absolute.
But it has been before shewn that this award
Of attachment was unnecessary, as a more eff
fectual method of securing the defendants ap.
Pearance in court, viz. r~cognizance, had
been adopted and as to making an entry on
the records, that the rule to shew cause was
made absolute, that was a mere fOrmality, as
il was necessarily implied in the order to an
swer interrogatories. On the third day then
1.-THE defendant having had due notice ON the
second Of the intended object) he appeared in
court and did answer the intcrrogatories filed
by the attorney for the Commonwealth
These interrOgatories l must regard in the
same light rs if they had been pr0pounded on
the return ofan attachment 81 for, although there
was slight irregularity in the proceeding, It
was substantially correct, and the defendant
was not deprived Of any right or advantage
thereby. The answer therefore that I would
give to the second question adjourned to this
court, would be; that no,o no rule for an at
tachment, nor the attachment itself, should be
awarded: And as this renders an answer to the
third question necessary, I " ould say that the
defendant had not purged himself of his con-
tempt by his answers to the intsrrOgatOries
propounded by the attorney for the Common
wealth.
As to the fourth question upon this record,
it is one upon which. in point Of Lutu, the Judge
of the Superior Court Of law of James City
county cannot need our advice-and upon
which, in point Of fact. he is more competent 10
decide than we are-I would therefore decline
answering this question.
JUDGE WHITES OPINION.
l,.., a ul.
brother Dade has taken Of the reasons, the
principles, upon which the power of courts TO
proceed by attachment is founded, has rem
dered II unnecessary, and indeed improper,
for me To say much upon that subject / shall
therefore proceed tn consider this case upOn
its merits, AS disclosed by legal authority,
with as little departure from that course ms
possible.
The most important question adjourned to
IFS is, did the conduct and language of Mr..
cambridge on this occasion amount TO such
contempt Of the said court as to Justify il in
proceeding against the defendant as by al
:achment? Ii is not denied. but that right
TO proceed in that manner does belong to tina,
court, when proper ease fer its exercise ari-
SEES. But II is commended that, ia general and
upon principle, no contempt can be commit
ted TO any court, unless il be in session at the
time, and The contempt be committed.in its
(tce. And thai no cOntrmptuous words, spo-
ken to or of judge during the recess or va
cation Of his court, however deeply they NAV
i.nplicate his judicial conduct, can be thus
punished. And that the few cases, which seem
to form an exception 10 this principle, and in
which the boOks sh-w, that attachments have
ISSUED for coDtempts committed out Of the
presence Of the court, are confined To con-
tempts offered, in the country, 10 its process.
To mal-prartIres by its officers and the like
but do not in any way justify the proceeding
in The present case.
The argument upon this point was specious
and imposing. Whether il was substantially
correc'-apd whether the result pndeavoured
to b. produced by il, be in accord with, either
the pubic COED, or the great principles Of Law
loug since established. (not for the pri, ate
qualification of the judges, hut TO insure the
we'll being Of society l. another question. A
question at solemn impor! To every man. who
looks to the laws of his couniry for the pre-
sers alton of all he holds dear.
You can0ut prOstrate line courts of the coun-
try at the feet of every disappointed sutton,
who may happen 10 lose hi, cause, or whose
conduct may necessarily elicit from a Judge,
obser, atoms unpleasant to his feelings, without
producing the most fatal consequences. No 81
destroy The protection which the law now
gives 10 your courts, unloOse the hands and
tongues of snch persons, expose your magis-
trates &" their abuse, cobturneIy and vitupera
lion, for their judicial conduct, without any
immediate and eificacOus means Of restraint.
and instead of that happy, digniied and
peaceablr state Of society which We now en-
iaw j nor magistrates aud let il be remembers
hat int pfrxy, lxt