Evansville weekly journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 184?-18??, 1848-04-20

OTThe following decision of the Supreme
Court of this State, we have been requested by
Mr. Ingle to publish.
STATE OF INDIANA NJ r. ,o,e
supreme Court, Nov Term A. D. ls47.
Present the Honorable Isaac Backford, Samuel
E. Perkins, Thomas L. Smith, Judges,
John Ingle Jr In Error to the War
rs: Prick Circuit Court.
The State of Indiana. A 49,
At this time come the parties by their coun-
sci and the court being sufficiently advised OF
the premises give the following opinion and
judgement pronounced:
This was proceeding against John lngle jr.
an attorney at law, for an alleged contempt OF
court. He was adjudged guilty and fined one
hundred dollars The Statute authorises anap-
peal in such cases to this court. The record
shows that on certain day of the October
Term. 1916. of the Warrick circuit court, the
Judges of said Court, nero motu, made the fol-
lowing order-viz: "Ordered by the Court that
rule be entered against John Ingle jr. to show
cause on tomorrow morning why he should
not be punished for a contempt OF court Tor adj
vising and counselling John N. Johnson, Thorn
as S. Adams and Martin Venada, or one or Ell
Their of them, that if they could not procure
cause pending in court, wherein the said John
n Johnson, Thomas S. Adams, and Martin
Venada are indicted for an assault and battery
upon the body of Daniel Kerr, upon affidavit.
they could then escape and forfeit their recog-
nizance, which would work continuance OF
said cause until the next term at trfllng cost.
and the prosecuting attorney of this court is dl-
rected by the court to prepare and file interoga-
tories for the said John Ingle jr.to answer,
predicated upon this rule.
Interrogatories were filed and lngle answered.
No cl1a INST no de-
PENDANT, was made, nor was any attachment Isl
sued. We shall not go into an examination of
the answer in this opinion, as the grounds, on
which we place our decision, does not require
it. We may however properly remark that if
the foregoing order of the court charges con-
tempt the answer of the defendant, as we think,
purges him of it. But we think the order
does not charge a contempt 1t, in SUBJ
stance, alleges that the defendant was an
attorney of the court, informed certain named
individuals, who were indicted and were on
recognizance, and were his clients, that if they
could not get posi- ponement of their trial up
on said indictment till subsequent term of
the court, upon affidavit filed, il was in their
power TO fail to appear for trial till such subse-
quent term, and that the consequence of such
failure would be forfeiture of their recogni-
zance, but that the forfeiture could be set aside,
on their appearance at the succeeding term at a
trifling cost. II does not allege that he advis-
ed tifem to take such course. He gave them
a legal opinion. We think it was touching
questions upon which his clients were entitled
to it, and that he had a right to give it. The
mere giving of such opinion therefore could be
no contempt of court If it was erroneous
the attorney was answerable to bis clients
We do not mean to say that the time and man.
ner of giving the opinion might not have been
such as to constitute a contempt of court, but
there can be no complaint on those grounds in
this case.
1t is therefore considered by the court that
the judgement ofthe circuit court be reversed,
and held for nought, all whichis ordered to be
certified to said court.