The Nevada journal., 1853-07-22

made publication of it, and after
wards returned the same to the clerk,
when it was recorded and filed.
From the foregoing finding of facts
the court has drawn the following de-
duction of law.
In this case there was no direct con-
tempt committed, or was the defendant
so charged in the order of arrest. The
contempt if any, is of that class termed
i'll the law consequential, which if
committed is reprehensible, and liable
to be punished as the former.
The main and only question neces-
sary to be decided in this case is, has
the defendant Sargent committed a
contempt of this court in that, by pub
fishing the evidence of witnesses and
commenting thereon, in the case of the
people VS.. H. Jansen, as taken in
the magistrates court, and during the
time the case was pending in the dis
triet court? This | will proceed to
consider with as little amplifcation as
possible. The effect of the publica-
ton as made was, as we have seen, to
greatly prejudice the public mind,
causing the community to PREJUDICE
the case and rendering the final trial
cf the accused difficult.
That this has been adjudged by
high authority both in England and
in the courts of the United States to
amou mt to contempt, is without any
doubt, indeed I can find no exceptions
to this ruling except in such cases
where the statute laws of state pre-
Scribes what shall constitute a con-
tempt of court, and specially to limit
and define the cause. The exceptions
are to be found in the act of Congress
of March I'd 1881, chapter SO, the pro-
visions of which were afterwards adop
ted by the states of Ohio, Tennessee.
New York has virtually enacted by
statute the common law of England,
and courts there can punish 'for the
publication of false or grossly inaccu-
rate reports of its proceedings" In
Pennsylvania by the act of 1909, and
its revised civil code of 1885, the pow
er to imprison is limited to contempts
committed in open court. In that state
no publication out of court, respecting
the conduct of the court, or any of its
officers, jurors, witnesses, or parties to
a cause pending in court, exposes the
party to summary punishment the
remedy is by indictment or an action
at law. This is no repeal or abroga-
ton of the law as understood before
that time, as specially decided in the
case of Respublica VS.. Osward in 1st
Dallas 80. The law of that state
now, only alters the remedy, but still
recognises the offence of publishing
to be unlawful, and punishable by in
dictment, or suit for damages, instead
of fine and Imprisonment by the court.
Excepting the notifications by stat
utes, as above recited l find the whole
current of English and American de-
cisions to be, that the publication of an
article or paper to prejudice the public,
IN cause then depending IS con-
tempt, and may be punished upon an
order to show cause, vide Kent 1st
vol. p. 30l and note. 4th Black 232,
Respublica VS.. Jasmore Sd Yates 438,
Sd Wheeler's criminal law, 1st pa.
By the statute of this state, under
the head of "contempts and their pun
ishments" vide statutes 1851, p. 1876,
sec. 4S0, it provides that certain acts
or omissions shall be deemed con-
tempts, which are therein enumerated;
does this preclude the proper courts in
this state from furnishing for other
equally clear contempts which may be
committed, and not set forth OR in
cluded in our statute ? Certainly not
for the statute no where imposes linn
itation of the powers of the court de-
rived from the common law, but leaves
the law as it stood before the passage
of the act.
Article 1st, sec. 8. of our constitu-
ton provides that "every citizen may
freely speak, write, and publish his
sentiments on all subjects, being re-
sponsible for the abuse Of that right &c.
No other right or privilege perhaps,
as secured to our citizens by the con-
stitution is more highly priced ard ap-
preciated, than this of free and unre-
strained discussion of all matters and
subjects that interest the public good,
and which relate to the proper govern
ment of the country, and the just ad-
ministration of the laws. And hold
the Judiciary department OF the gov
ernment in its acts, is as much subject
to be reviewed, criticised and discussed
as either the executive or legislative,