The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-03-02
BERGH'S CONTEMPT.

L
RzCoRpER HAcKETT PURaEs AND LETS HIN
oo-rHE POINTS OF DECISION.
While Judge Sutherland was busy yesterday In
the Court Of General Sessions empanelling tho
Grand Jury for the March term, Recorder Hackets
entered the court room for the purpose OF hearing
the argument in the Bergh contempt case.
Mr.. Eloridge T. Gerry. counsel for the accused,
began by saying that by the old common law
there were two kinds Of contempt, physical and
constructive. The former was committed In the
immediate view and presence OF the Court, and
the latter outside OF the immediate view and
presence that he would endeavor to show that
the common law rule OF contempt did not now
exist IN this State This sending OF communities.
ton to Q Grand Jury was constructive contempt
because It was done outside OF the Immediate pres
ence OF the Court The Revised Statues in 1880
abolished the common law rule OF contempt, aud
provided that every court Of record should have
power to punish Tor contempt persons guilty OF
offences committed In the immediate presence OF
the Court.
Recorder Hackett Are you aware that 1t has
been decided IN this State that the immediate
presence oil the Court Is not only the room in
which the Court IL being held, but means as well
the room to which its petit jury retires, and the
grand jury rooms
that the offence charged against his client, II an
offence at all. was not committed within the i'm
mediate presence OF the Court. The meaning Of
the words Immediate view and presence" was
that me Court must have ocular view o.
client was not within the statute. az
tue common law rule OF contempt mad been
abolished; that the offence must be committed al
mere expression OF opinion telling the Grand Jury
that tney had acted enormously IN dsmlssing me
Aov,r.a lorn ln 0Qh r
Bergh. 10 the effect that on the sth ult eight
witnesses Tor the people appeared before the
one tue police o11cer who made the arrest, and
the other man who was In the place OF the man
Complainant was not called ana that the accused
was, IN his own language ''honorably dis
In Conclusion, Mr.. Gerry said he would submit
that the letter sent TO the Grand Jury was at best
Dat o. and 'hst I'm
Jury did not AZ the time have the case in question
under consideration
should submit my Views in writing. am clear thai
The nM SS ct
10 e saver S s ssee the
nous 6ehsyiour com%tsd during fhe sitting p, the
tSsi under the "5saayi oI may cover he wrtns
ssns s:r s's; sv a'
NY K, = 49, that grand jury room is an snlafss'
nsndSs 70 s the S' @
az s r a
being outside OF the court room proper is true. but
% AND and SS Dfa Of ss
OF ne eS az b 1dss
e eSpresslon SersG present
bear to mention addressed to any officer OF the Court
PAIR respect Al the Of the last October
lows; Ihe minutes Of some grand juries have in tho
sderaOns and Of and references which
S b a.s
finally dismssing bills Of Indictment The grand juror
s In hs iit the epe ri IL the the Ssn
your duty Is grand Jurors that any person.
desired, becomes your legal adviser shall apsroash
an oendDs ou en VIII
:,as. S,; SSsadins ::
I'll h the o
influence with the grand inGue but urors allow let
Or taeiT counsel visits e 6e %sde e them Ihsir
ct S such Sy o
w ha the v that a
IL 4 as ssSss s
ID, which sa should s ss sS6sa
: S:s both be tas ssa an hi
District Attorney by written appointments from Messrs
"such letter was sent and Intended to be on
cia communication In the interests OF the people of this
State, which dcponent then honestly believed he
then representing ana not TO subserve any private
person interest to gray any individual sp
malice And deponent ARMY ana conscienuously be.
eved at the time that he only doing his duty, and
that his entirely Unsuitable under the author
ty derived from the Attorney General and District At
torney referred to-" In the matter OF strong. in this
Court half century since ss,r, was ,a nedd
to the Grand Jury ought not to be considered
q empt, unless 1t clearly appeared that IL was
designed interrupt the administration Of Justice the
Supreme Court has held Weeks VS. smith Abb.
Proc. r., p 2lD that L the alleged con,Semp'
nocence Of the party Of any Intentional dis,
seem that Mr.. Berghs explanation that he was acting
the prosecuting officers, Is consistent with
innocence. rhe Court, however trusts that II may be
pardonei Tor observing that the representative of the
Attorney General the District Attorney il to
those gentlemen II not 10 himself to nfuse into his ora
written intercourse with grand juries rather the
mode the (ortiter ia and TO remember
an Old saying that he who imPugns motives should
always rgidy examine his own"
Let the rule be discharged and Mr.. Henry BerHn
stands cxonerated under his explanatory oath from any
Intentional contempt