The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-02-25

In The Supreme Court OF this State Ia the ondsr
or Ds.
!s SsHasas g sa:s;y sas s%.eseu 's' u ' con-
his cosassaoe bytasdsr ana ssllrsspect as veil -
ties, imPsrously demand that they ssoaii " used
md order enforced with dfn sad s.ssiy
and o. III. coss is a n. a sss
conducting tssir proeeedisss ana 81 necessary po..
they should know AMI feed that thsy alone Justly 70
epoDeibe for us Observance" So for the author
now 70 the authority Of Justices Of district Courts
The organization Of these ia ia ~ respects Pc
cuar They have CLERKS and oficiai seals and though
they are not Justices Courts spoken Of in The statn,e
nor are they strictly Courts Of Record although thoy
possess many of the ari ,utes OF such courts yet they
are courts, OF interior Jurisdiction, Ia true but with
full powers all subjects .ithin their ursdct
among thsse is the poser to punish Cor contempt
united IN Their presence whe the Court is in session
They may be termed inferior couts, nst Of record In
speaking OF such courts the late Judge Couen in his
81 so she 70, 2 aoi cd ssys. rrsspscye
iuded -" which we shall presently notice at are, this
Count, lJnsticer Court and indeed all courts. nave
power while ia the exercise OF their lawful functions TO
pr serve order, decorun and silence Tor without this
power no tribunal can exist and refer 10 str 42o
Chit Grim Law, SO and 49, At common Law, thi. pc
was held TO be incidental 70 every tour. (ses
the remarks OF Justice Johnson OF the Su
confined TO Courts Of Record. Ia Soarks Martin
Venris the Court of Kings Dsnch resolved ton the
question directly arising relation 20 courts no. OF
record in these words.-"Thsy may punish that
ies-ts the process Of their court and may ne and i'm
for contempt to their court acted In the face OF
\, though they are no court Of record Not only IN
Terror courts not OF record have that power but
single stra tie sitting court enjoys W common
law the right to commit for contempt and effect
thereof fully discussed in Lining Bsnthram q
Pay ID in the stitutcnal Court OF Appeals OF South
Carolina, on return OF a warrant for u breach OF
tho peace, agant one Duncan, the Justice refused 70
take the bale offered, upon which Lining got into vio
lent passion aud accused the Justice of gross partially
and abuse Of power In his Office of mag rie, accom-
panied with yefy abusive and dsres anguege to
bis face, and in the OF number Of byssnars
The Justce drew up commitment and committed
1inrg TO the common jail for this coutenptuoos b..
havior Lining brought suit sgaipst the Justice and
duncan vas admitted AS witness, and that the
facts stated in the commitment untrue and yer
dict was taken Tor the plaintH but the Court set
aside the verdict and determined that the commitment
drawn by tue Justice conclusive evidence in his favor
and that the Justice not amenable in aston for
judicial act OF this nature. In delivering their opinion
IN this case, the Court remark" And general prin
cp!e Incidental TO all courts, we'll superior Inferior
was power TO commit for contempt either by word
deed, offered in the presence OF the Judge and in the
face OF the Court" One would suppose that tho dec-
sions have ctd and the opinions therein expire. sed
would satisfy any that inferior court mot Of
cord) have the pc to commit for contempt have
therefore come to the conclusion Cndeei never had
any ooubt as TO my power that viii follow hess dec
sions Notwithstanding the summary the Learned
Judge disposed OF the committal o. Mr Smith and shall
requires it. co not intt nd any disrespect to Judge
Daly by the remarks have just made but merely Ia
tend 10 show the law under which Justices OF these
courts exercise the power to commit for contempt