The weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 186?-1869, 1869-06-23
tinguished the administration of justice by

B. F. MOORE.
3.F. Moore being duly sworn says upon
his oath that the matters of fact set forth
in the foregoing answer are true to his own
knowledge.
This 10th day of June, A. D. 1859.
B. F. MOORE.
Before me this June 10Th, 1869.
VIM. 81. BAGLEY, Clerk.
Mr.. Battle moved to discharge the rule,
and founded the motion upon two grounds,
upon either of which he thought he must
be sustained. The first ground was that
the rule was improvidently issued, that it
was not case of contempt, not case for
which Mr.. Moore could be called upon
to answer before the court. It was difficult,
upon reading the authorities, to ascertain
precisely what could be deemed contempt
of Court In general, contempts are COM
mitted in open court, by improper rule or
improper conduct, either by officers of the
court or by persons attending upon it; but
he admitted that there are circumstances in
which contempt may be committed in the
absence of the Court 1t seemed to him
that, for the purpose of settling the difficult
ties which had arisen in determining what
are contempts of court, our Legislature had
laid down and prescribed what, and what
only, are to be regarded as contempts of the
Court of North Carolina. He referred to
the act in relation to proceedings in con-
tempt, ratified April 10th, 1869, which was
law at the time the document was pub
lished, and he said that by that act alone
this Court should be governed in this case.
He read the first seven specifications in
which person might be punished for con-
tempt, denied that either was applicable
here, and dwelt at length upon the Sth, viz:
''Misbehavior of any officer of a court in
any official transaction" and said that as
the document was not published during the
session of the Court it did not fall within
the provisions of the act, did not constitute
a contempt, and upon that ground he asked
that the rule be discharged.
Second, he argued that as it is well known
that a crime consists of an act and an intent,
that there must be an act committed with
criminal intent. In the third part OF his
answer MIR. Moore has disavowed in the most
solemn manner that he intended to commit
a contempt of the court, and it was only for a
contempt of this Supreme Court now sitting,
for which he could be punished. Mr.. Bat
tie read at length from the case of the peo-
pie gs Chew, in the State ofNew York, re-
ported in I'd Johnson's reports, $50, in
which Chancellor Kent laid down the rule
that to constitute contempt there must be
an intention to commit a contempt. Upon
these grounds he said the Court must come
to the conclusion that this case did not
fall within any law of North Carolina
amounting to contempt; and if it did,
that whatever of contempt might have been
supposed to exist had been completely mega
lived by the answer of the defendant.
Judge Fowle said he should submit few
remarks with view principally to the de-
fence set up in the answer, to-wit: that the
defendant in his answer admitted signing
the protest and insisted that the Supreme
Court had No authority in law to make a
Jurisdiction to enforce said rule. When this
matter was first announced from the Bench
he Mr Fowle) understood the Court to say
that when this protest was called to their
attention, three courses of action were sug-
gested to them; one to have the printed
matter referred to Grand Jury
of the county, and have the signers
of it brought before the Superior Court I'm.
der the charge and prosecuted therefor; sec.
ond, proceeding for a contempt of court to
arraign those who signed this paper before
the bar for contempt of Court, and here
punish them by fine and Imprisonment; OF
thirdly, by serving this rule upon them and
calling upon them to show cause why they
should not be disbarred as practitioners in
this Court. The third was adopted, and
the rule was served.
With great respect to this Court, he ex.
ceedingly doubted, if this Court had been
sitting as Court of Kings Bench of Eng
land, that they would have had any author
ity to issue this rule. Why2 Because it is
proceeding in the nature of criminal
action; and yet We find that in the first in
stance the defendant is disbarred by the
judgment of the Court from appearing, un
less upon Tuesday, the 18th of June, hi
shall show cause to the contrary. He die
not think there could be found any sucl
judgment pronounced before the Respondent
had had an opportunity of making a de
fence.
Waving for an instant this objection, sup
pose rule had been issued 10 show cause
why attachment should not issue, and to
day he were standing before the Court Of
the Kings Bench, it might be that the
Court would have the power to punish him
because there almost any reflection upon
the Court would be punished to such de
gree that it was admitted in England and
the civilized world to be an evil. And
therefore when the United States were form
ed, when the State of North Carolina, fol
years, followed this practice of the English
Court, it was found in 1916 that liberty it
self demanded that some check should be
placed upon this power. Therefore this act
of 1S46 was Incorporated into the Revised
Code, chapter IA. section III. 1t is there
declared that attachments and summary
| Droceedinps for contemnt of Court shalI he