Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1868-08-25
GF1LTytNHT
'Judge" Sparkling Bound Over 80 the
Criminal Court.
Official Oppression.
WHOM WELD the GaveI NOW

who'll Weld the GaveI Now
On yesterday, at 4 P. NJ, the foliowil
able decision was rendered In the case
Newton as. Sparling, for an act Of ofici
oppression, by Jualices Wilkinson, Brit
and Bush.
The Importance and novelty of this cas-
as we'll as the great interest manifested
1t by the community, have prompted us /
write down our opinion aud the reason
for the opinion.
| Sitting as committing court, it Is on
duty to bind the defendant, if tie proof sal
isles US, that justice demands further in
vestigation. II, on the contrary, the proc
is insufficient under the warrant, il is on
duty to discharge the defendant.
The defendant il one of the Commission
ers of the Police Court A court in which
according 70 the proof, there is much bust
neas transacted, In which most of the law
yers Ia the city practice, many of the youn.
lawyers doing their largest practice in il
The defendant ia charged with oficia
oppression, under section 4Sl3 of the Code
which - IN these words :--y. 49, .--
II any person, BY color of his Office
wIinlly and corruptly Cypress any De rsor
under pretense of acting in his Official ca
pacity, he shall be punished by fine nol
exceeding one thousand dollars, or impris-
onment in the county Jail not exceeding
one year, n.srt.F
The facts are according to the proof, and
IN which there is but little discrepancy. that
Mr.. Newton, the prosecutor, a young lawyer
who had been practicing in this court for two
or three years, on last Tuesday mornin0
went into that court TO defend one err, uISon
charge OF assault and battery. Entering an
anteTon-2 before court was opened, he found
Commissioner oparling engaged in cover
satlon, and, stepping up to him, he touched
him on the arm to arrest his attention.
with q view to speaking to him about hay-
ing the case disposed OF, as the parties were
about to compromise it. Commissioner
Sparkling turned to him and said, " New
ton, j don't like such familiarities" and
brushed his coat where Newton had
touched. ThereuPon Mr.. Newton said to
him, will see you again about this"
Sparkling said: What do you mean ?"
Newton replied that he had his police
about him, but that he did not propose to
be insulted by him, and that he would, see
him some other time. Sparkling then said
that he did not mean TO insult him. And
here the matter rested.
The parties then went into the court
room, and court was opened t|e .f
When the case of Kerr was called, Mr..
Newton arose and addressed the court, but
was Immediately stopped by the Commits
sioner, who told him that he should not or
could not practice in his court. Mr.. Newton
asked the reason, saying he was licensed
lawyer, butno reason was given. Mr.. New
ton left the court room, and the case was dis
posed OF without counsel and the defendant
was fined. r.i aI'5 d.s .e-
Mr.. Newton, that morning, took out this
warrant, and asks to have the defendant
bound over r
The defendant relies upon two separate
grounds of defense
First. That he had the right to strike
the prosecutor from the roll, or deny him
the right to practice in his court without
giving him any notice, and without his be-
ing heard. Ii is argued that the court is
the exclusive judge of the character and
fitness of counsel to practice law, and why
strike an attorney from the roll without his
having any opportunity 10 defend himself.
aACs cOAiSCiAb ~ ltllS uOllIlnt, taDe-
cially az no authority has been shown to
sustain it. We think the authorities
brought on the other side show conclu-
sively that this cannot be done
Second. 1t is contended that the conduct
of the prosecutor in the ante-room justified
the action of Commissioner Sparkling in the
course he took, and especially that there
was no willful aud corrupt oppression
Whether there was familitary in the touch
according TO the proof, we are satisfied
there was no such familiarity az should
have given offense. 1t was not 40 intended,
and We are wholly unable to see how it
could be so construed. The conduct of
Sparkling in brushing his coat, "a exhibited
by the witnesses, was certainly inclined TO
show his contempt for Newton and was an
insult-we think a very gross indignity-
and We can not see that Mr.. Newton, in
the notice he took of this Insult, went be-
yond what any man of spirit would have
done.
For this it seems that the Commissioner
denied him the privilege of practicing in
his court, when he had for several years
been admitted. Was this willfui and cor.
rupt oppression by virtue Of his office?
We recognize the doctrine that men in Off
cial stations, especially judicial officers, can
not be punished for errors or mistakes, not
for wrongs which spring from niomentary
excitement or feeling, but if Judge, "a
j udge, were to deny a man any right be-
cause of personal emily, or to Crafty per- i
sonal hate, this, il seems to us, would be
using the office in a willful and corrupt
To strike young lawyer from
the roll, or drive him out Of court, is to
disgrace and degrade him forever, aud is
very grieYous offense when there is no.
provocation for il. We can see no calise,
whatever, for the injury done Mr.. Newton.
If it was done through or by virtue Of his
office, and being inflicted in an official ca
pacity to crafty personal matters, it was
willful and corrupt oppression. VI
We think the defendant should be bound
oyer to the Criminal Court. I
The bond was fixed at $1,000, with Gen.
Geo. Nancy, Jas. Davis, d. w. Peabody
and +. A. Otis, as sureties $50. ..apI