The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1874-04-15
The Columbia Contempt Case

,Our:readers. will recoilect, that by
AN order of Judge Carpenter, dated
12 January, 1874, certain prominent
members of the Columbia Bar, Mcssrs
}. D. Pope, A..C. Haskell, F. W. Nc.
Z Master, L.C. LeConte, ". K. Bach.
: man, and L. F. Youmans, were ad,
judged guilty of contempt of Court.
q, by disobedience to an order passed
in the case of the Citizens Savings
Bank, of the % Nov. 1873, and were
suspended from practice in the Cir
cult and Probate Courts Of the State:
until they should restore the proper
ty and effects Of the Bank to the
custody of the Court, and should re-
turn the fees received by them since
the passage of the November order.
An appea! was taken to the Supreme
:, Court, and the case submitted upon
written argument, and the decision
has just been rendered, Chief Justice
Moses delivering the opinion of the
Court, adjudgiug that the order Of
the IL January, 1874, he ctaside,
and that the case be remanded to the
Circuit Court for such further pro-
ceedings as may be judged proper.
The Court holds that contempt
was committed by the attorneys in
'disregarding the order of the Circuit
F.. Court, though caused by an appeal to
Court ofcompctent, nay cxclusiveju,
risdiction over the subject matter; that
the question of jurisdiction cannot
affect the merits of tho case or ex-
tenuate the act of the attorneys; in
deed the Court1 would seem to hold
that in employing the surest means
to render the order Of the Circuit
Court Intellectual, the attorneys did
that which constituted an aggrava-
ton Of their. offence.
!, With re gard to the powers of the
Circuit Judge to inhict the punish
'ment Of suspension or removal, the
1Supreme Court holds, that without
inquiring into the powers which are
inherent in the Courts of General
Sessions and Common Pleas, the pow
ers designated are clearly conferred
by the 6, Z and 8 sessions of Chapter
CVII of General Statutes, and the
punishment may be inflicted in case
coming within the provisions of those
sections, by the Circuit Judge. The
Court thus decides against the con-
struction urged in the argument of
the attorneys, that before punish
ment can be inflicted by the Court
under the 9TH section, the attorneys
must first be 'indic:ed and convicted,
and holds that the provision of the
section H..rcquiring a copy of the
charges to be served on the attorneys
by the Clerk of the Court, shows
clearly the intention of the Lcgisla-
ture; that any other construction
would deprive the Circuit Judge Of
the right of determining the existence
of the charge, and refer it as a qucs-
ton of fact to the jury.
In the present case, however, the
Court holds that the contempt was
not of $50 gross Or heinous character,
involving either contumely or ,disre-
spcct to the Judge, or malpractice of
so gross q kind, as to render them
improper persons to represent the
rights of. Others" which only could
furnish a just cause for depriving at
torneys Of their license to practice.
To infict so heavy punishment upon
offences Involving no moral turpitude
would contound the. gradations of
offences, and do very great wrong.
The Court fErthor holds that the
Circuit Judge has annexed an i'm
possible condition to his order in re-
quiring the attorneys to restore the
funds of the Bank to the custody of
The Court, before it could be vacated.
Those funds are now, being admins
tered by Bankrupt Court. and no
legal proceedings now could restore
them to the State Courts. AS to the
fees of counsel, tho Court holds that
the prohibition of the order did not
apply, it being applicable to paying
out and not to receiving, and hence
that the attorneys not being warned,
were not directly liable for q breach
of the order.
The decision then Of the Supreme
Court sustains the position of Judge
Carpenter, that the validity of the
order of the 22d November, had
nothing to do with the question Of
contempt, that so long as it was not
;;rescinded it was the duty of the at
torneys to obey it, and that by invo-
king the process of another Court
they were guilty of q contempt to-
wards the Circuit Court. No author
tiles are citedaby the learned Judge
in defence of this position, though it
seems to be very strongly. fortified by
tie authorities which Judge Carpen.