New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-05-31
LAW Lv7ELLIGE4VCE.
TIE CONTEMPT CASE.

TIE CONTEMPT CASE.
arms cousr-0Esssn TrsH-Nsy 2S-Bsfore Judges
D.vIrs lscRsHss aud SUTHERLAND.
r. p,. 80 JohI Mitchell ~ The sied q New Yos
Tis morning me foic ~lng opinion was rendered 10
ths ssse: IT, :.
scyras and WIT, broueh' before
az Cont ~ the Sheriff He returns that be bold. ~ psonr
wine according the ard command Il
.,s.is osnmGen for alleged contempt soopy Of which
-ss thereto annexed
oour: Of Common Plea. for the ooveIy Ct o Of snd ia
Trial thereof that he defending the ston as the land
td Of tbe def udst that be asked ~hetber he has ia he
and other papers which
" day, es s t' 0d 10 S hat be sas To-
produce the papers beo,us- tney The possession Ct the
I'D r.c who eI IL CJut snd scng IL the case ~ a.
Il sO .prs.sd ha toe rsla:oT vas Sea csled as oess
sve,cd BY Bs,z replied that be could with
s: s9sSs sS S ia p.oeI 10 20 ri
ysrpsse Of answering DE question: refused TO dc and while
sbe I0eeT oonsdeon TIE reaor the bundle 81
Psys to bis client with nsactons 70 take them from the
h sso ,...td tia. O. sabseqnea. day :b said rei.:or
t1smioed toe ston the tne having bet3 ad
10 s time AID Be s s .a ed & h. bad ID
Csw 70 ook 1T NE psP.r' 80 far :. to nty them and
~, would be breach of privilege as The .oFay ioi tn
sso stated that such questions perinsn,
fer such refusal re.tor adjldged b. ses Court OF
Upon thee grounds the commitment s'uei.
We were 20 ege Of TN. Question upon %. me,. ;1.
CsIrt 10 grAniiEs the coInmitneni
party and his counsel trAoser from the Que ;
The ether importsD. required evidence and
thereby he css from compelling The production Of
administration Of justice Such combination between
party and his attorney might well under the ccumsaDces Be
sondeied entirely distinct from where the
csmmurcations of client sought 70 b. di;osed Ia
aid counsel and the Court should carefully guard against
seEp to eonps counsel thas to ee;Isy the eoidsnc
together dses, The pTop administration of justice, and
10 privilege cloak for purpose, entitled
"a of he
relieved himself Of the esponso by placing ia bis clients
Isssessisp ard hereby denF the power Of the Court
The papers sougb, for required in evidence and ap
he party ealing for them lad evidence oe
doe &c, spp a 't He %ssn and ssh ly dod nov @
podDced To this extent the counsel could he protected
s;% s5ss hs e Se EXPRESSLY n wa ssd 10 of
Phelps ct al Prev "a Law and Equity Rep o. although
his client bad directed him produce he deed 1t there
attorney proaoce the deed for Identification Judse Wsh
Compelling the production oftne deed f the purpose
necessary thai attorney had the Deed which be
required produce Ellie j. said the Judge therefore was
he endorsement might BE- at and CTOmpon says:
was 10 Sa Of 10 e An 10 s
Collins Law Rep rs II was held that an storey OF
u which he received from hs client il N b' pos
session elsewhere il the Court Pske g. -sys: The pv
by any other than confidential communicative
with his ee though if had not beea employed as attorney
Thus he prove the fact that particular document then
possession this fact professionally
1ssIossd 70 him All distinction between
to ne possession OF the aud producing for
ieItbes:ion, and as 70 disclosing We conients
Hid SOS S. ''''' 49, : 49, WV '''' 49, 'D' avn
II Is not pecesy inquire whether OF these p
prs could been disclosed by the couse That the party
kmsef should have been required 70 produce them w6e 10
been proper and oud placed the responsibility on the one
Whether railing Of no., OF
e opinion tsi the statue requires US to remand eF prisoner 40
By the . section Of the aute to wt' ef cs5es' corpus
iss rss shall pear that be- d.t.iSed IN en-; dy
ts nmp specially and plainly charged 10 the commitment
eIAIr~d
And BY the 49d section the Cut deprived Of any
sgoIe ioo the justice popiey OF any nitment for
son,empt made ally Cour officer BODY 10 law and
Tbs. tie Conon Piess bad rd lono the
parties enied That the contempt OF Cour having
w. reusA Of witness question winch hei' Direct
The regular in form aud contains
ssse had ocesssn 6ereSofore to cour,
soer inquire into oase OF oosau'e' LOT cohehp' III 'e
In that case which before justice cfth Court Especial
proceeding and not in Court w"' held ths ou two eSuons
could BE- .xsminsd-hrst as to utsdcon ana secondly a. 10
Of the commitment That rule applicable 70 TINS ci.e
sgrsrh: Tbs. hs oo o s "a Ros 10 TIM Peo %
GaSs Hin If the Justice had authority t, aquirt into
es'pu M S tn cont"Tr. Syss speisy cbsrce1 and
the duty Judge prisoner And sssit
he ssy E evident that hr Legislature d not intend to pro-
vide for etra by corpus such case" And toe
sny inquiry allowed in that in the case Devu was a.
The jurisdiction Of the mAgis''ae As that Jurisdiction inhe
undoubsed commitment /. snf lent IN
form tAns al that tine requires o. The
opinion thai the prisoner must be ensneed aud the writ d
CHARGED
made Court yesterday for the Slow
exee Of the oeTtiornI In the NJ
Although feel liberty the allowance Of toe
wi, the under the provisions Of toe Revised
STATUTES makes the duty the Court Jnaee
the writ su thG the counsel will SEE iro IN
~x opinion ths for the above stated
p judgment Of the Commsn Pleas IN this
natter ssoing Of that wn would be- uusVane TO
- party
TIE whit should directed TO the officer having the
1eoy prisoner Judge who made the order
Sseon 5 the form Of the writ given IN the stsat
So only return the day and Of imprisonment
ssd set the proceedings.
II the wit oer,ofsri dered will be allowed in the form
S1yestsd by fhe statute