The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1869-12-06

s s.,. sss siSSss may may :; .ss::
sss pspsS Il ss r. JS S
the Judge, and are done msiioiousiy or cor.
4 u TTssfe vaDswns, 20 Moors,s Privy oouesil
r., a motel an authority raferrsd e IN the
oplnion Of the court In Randall W. Brighsm,
Wayne :sd .sS :ss. on.
London and one in Ireland, none "" ever
attempted. a.,
.sov 70; IL: court K. : @ s
Fisher, in making the order. Ia question, had
psipsbiy .iraascended his lurisdie.icni but
ias a Sss 'G Su..oS u law ): decided Os
Had he succeeded in .hcwl.s m: p.Ipseis
b, might hsy. had me risht 70 sSduse w. I
ne e ppsys q
Scsss pssps But =. to tie aassson
proceeded to make the order Without having
Nm w.s Rss s.d y sns sSpo
tunity siven kim TO meet the eharge'st affair
n n Rsadsn ". brigham, ! wall, SO, the
eeedinss ssain.t attorneys for Ihslprscties
founded upon formal sIies siioos assinst them"
what The court lssrns OF the sonduet q the
tim U hoy are moved by third parties upon
afidsyit, And some times they are taken By |
the court upon Its own motion"
U %ose Nh nv, II y %faclsns 10 auth
whatever jaagmsnt he may pronouecs, III,
troverted By witnesses called TO contradict |
what the Judge knows, and As to which he 70 |
what he saw or heard, he will, Of course, re- |
ceiys ali the liahts he Gan obtain. But as he |
may himself decide from his own observation,
nesaos to contradict his own knowledge. Sup
nose tbs plsIntfF iu this case had been afforded
;Ss A ;h had stsy:a y
contained 10 the order 10 question was /" false
| ron berinnins 70 end,n would that evidence
Ssss. 70 make Il. o 90 there any
| com petent TO compel 4 Judge to put faith In
witnesses who, he know. from The testimony
Hut after all, when We come TO examine the
offers Of evidence In this ease, made for the
purpose Of oontradiotins. the record, We dad
prove that the mere circumstances and acct
| dents OF the transaction were not exactly A.
.ssy tho Ss
denial, al. set out In his declaration, 10 con-
h ne would 10 n have had no right 10 prove more
than he had himself alleged 10 his declarationi
Or, in other words. to prove his own admission
ne.ios u ioss MAKING nal he orasi Ia The P.ops
.. Ne,i.:, h,li. IN: Y. R; ~, .h hr. 0oa 9,
always deemed not only to be within the juris-
pTe.en, in court, and they are 50 expressly
treated In pleading. They are always 10 term
time ~ much within NE j9risdie.ion Of he
sheriff or marshal. No process, therefore,
against either Is perhaps strictly necessary to
bring them into court - u o,,,,.
and In the Don stitutiop that no person shall
Of HI. NJ oe *. S ss SStSP
SensTsiiy means s:writ or warrant, built Is not
Iimitedto that Specification. Lord Coke, 10
his commentary on this word, q Inst H.a,
y srhis ,o rS,a o Io nlPpssesiSa sy which
man may be hrresied.n 50 that man may oe
deprived Of hts liberty even without writ
or awarrsnt,if II DO by lawful authofnY, OF
, proceeding, As he shows By number Of ex-
| amplcs afterwards. The question therefore
recars, and We are to LOOK 20 me SeO.siSn;
, the meaning Of this word As applicable to a
, case like the present. Inc power OF tne coutts
punish a., person. 70 summary manner 10, 10,
} court and presumed TO be .lw.ys present IN
It's jurisdietion aud control, not merely for
!. o. attorney, the jurisdiotion OF the courts
, | summary proceeding IL educ process Of law"
!, In SECONDS case, 10 How. ., the relatoi
e. a, he his sS.ss ssa
e out notice. Chief Justice fancy IN pro.
. noussins the opinion q the court, whilst very
y course pursued by the court In that instance
Q says; 1.-THE court, 1t seems, were OF opinion
. that no notice was necessary, and proceeded
n eIronsous or not, yet It was made In tbs sI
ereise Of judicial authority, where the sub!ee
Al I has fnra ha axl aQI
e this form OF prooedure:', and thi. t1iina T. ~
y ierrod to and approved In er Pdris SrAaiey !.
n mi AZ The time nor Y8r vtea. IA open court
.rS 70 IT, sc So I th.t whsn ths order was maa'
% facts 10 The mind Of the Judge in regard to
- transaction Of which there was NO entry OIL
the minutes Of the court.
o Ser from the bar for misconduct as q erimina
A., AZ ;as no, order :6
IF garded nv tho law else would The trial be tris
Ie by Jury, after Indictment, and in a court q
n sstoIns inrisdiotion only IA has bean declde
n ,shmsat hut a made Of The court TO rel I'd =
It an inproper oi,ieer. Upon this ground tn
u S two sttorneVs Of whom one had been foup
Il ruilty Of a felony ave years previously, bu
10 psrdon, since which time his conduct had bee
4. | eood and tina othsr had beep convicted of A
v sttempt TO extort money, but Judgment hs
"a hssn arrestad Ana M he vas neyer senten oed
4. Sse ~ mario Brounseli Cowp. r., sac, and Re
"a ys sontherton a Fat. I&3 IN the irst OF thes
l. es.es Lord N AM ae Id said, aThis Application
ar 1. not IN The nnture Of second trial or a nev
nunishmcnt mt the ouestion ID whethe
n sfter the conduct Of this man Il 10 proper IN
n Ia shouIs eontinue A member or a proTessio
N wbiss should stand free from all suspicion y
n N thc Isttsr sass aithourh the nttorney hn
.snansS .sntsnse' and 10 Wa TO be reaarded 4
II tsc sve Of The law a. an Innocent man, We
N Iord 'Ellenborourh sftsr he had arrested IN
IA i1Ssment in Inc case. said "that enourh AZ
r. Tcsrrd 10 the oourt To satisfy them that n
h Ssfand.nt was A yery improper persou 10 n
IN main a. An attorney On the rolls Of the courj
Dr. Tbereupon he desired the master to in9nir
III Ana report Whether the ant were mi
NJ nnon tbr roll Of sttornevs Of this oourtn III
name ofthe attorney val subseauently ordere
a. 10 ~ str,cten from ina roll an attorneya IN
In snthor ~ Evans' Prastioe image ash saws ths
Nj he ,scaiiects q cs.s in Hhieh an Attorney WI
" .t,aeS an the roll of Inc attornsys OF Bslt,
Il more fSonnty Cotrt for eross igno rance An
rf stvniaity These nuaiitles, though offepsiy
:. whcreysr found' are not criminA1, espscinil
l.. In the learned professions.
In Hut, A. 10 the present case, the declaratio