The Nevada journal., 1853-07-22

People VS.. Walker as tried before
Judge Parsons at San Francisco and
for which the judge was attempted tc
be impeached, and in the case of judge
Peck on impeachment before Con-
gress. There is not the least analogy
in those cases to the one now before
court. In both of those cases the con-
tempt alleged to have been committed
consisted in publishing libel upon the
Judge of the court, whereas in the
present case no contempt can possibly
be construed to have been offered to
the judge presiding, in or out OF court.
or to any of the rules, orders, or proc
ess of the district court then in session,
as by the distinct ayerment in the Or
der of arrest, the defendant is requir-
ed to show cause why he should not
be punished for having published the
testimony taken before a committing
court, in the case mentioned, and COM
menting on the same so as to prejudice
the public mind, and thereby disturb
ing and preventing the administration
of Justice, or the final trial of the case
by jury.
After careful examination of the
authorities now in reach of the court,
and a mature and thoughtful consider
alton thereof, l am of the opinion that
it is contempt in an editor of a news
paper to write and publish any article
calculated to induce community to
preiudge cause which must be tried
by jury selected from its vicinage, to
infame and prejudice the public mind !;
in any action then actually pending,
and undetermined, and more particu-
larly in case involving life and death.
There are no legal objections why an
editor may not state and publish the
facts concerning any homicide or mat
tiers of like occurrence before the ac-
cused is committed for trial, and to
make such comments in relation there
to, as are not false or libelous. Yet it
is morally wrong, as all must agree, If
the editor is given to understand that
the case will undergo judicial investi-
CATION, and for this reason with well
informed public journalist they forbear
to publish more than bare statement,
rather than to risk doing the public or
the accused an injustice, by throwing
obstacles in the way of, and prevent
ing fair and impartial trial by jury
of his peers.
AS before intimated / accede what I
believe to be the privilege, and in
many cases the duty of the conductors
of the press to discuss in any manner
their judgments dictate provided it is
not libelous) the decision or judgment
of any court, or the conduct of the
Judge or the officers, in any cause
which has been finally determined. To
rule otherwise would be a gross attack
upon the liberties of the press, whilst
to permit the publication of evidence,
which is usually ex party in its char
acter before examining and commit
ting courts would lead to incalcufabls
and difficulty, during the pen
dancy of the suit.
The only remaining question to be
decided, and which involves directly
the guilt or innocence of the defend
ant, is that of the jurisdiction Of this
court.
1t appears from the testimony and
the fact was mainly relied on by the
defendants counsel, that the district
court was not in session at the time
the publication was made, and that the
case of the people VS.. Jansen had not
been transmitted to that court for trial,
and therefore the publication could be
no contempt Of this court.
have already arrived at the con-
clusion of law, that to constitute the
the offence charged, the cause must be
untried and actually pending in the
court having jurisdiction, and it turns
out in evidence in the present case,
that no such suit of the people VS..
Jansen had at that time been placed
on the docket of the court. For this
reason alone the order herein before
made is dismissed and the defendant
W. L. BARBOUR,
District Judge.
c.. - -. yJr.+r., ,nop Wa