New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-03-02
THE COURTS.
HENRY BERGH ExONERATED

coNcERNINa cosrFNPT-THE KECoRDERs DEl-
Sion.
The proceedings AGAINST Henry Bcrgh for
N. alleged co4tsmrt u court in scadng hier o. re-
nonsiranoe o. Grand Jrry yesr 'sv disposed OF
~ Recorder Uacgptt The Recorder tod Mr. Gerry MI
Rerrhs counsel 81 the commencement Of the couns'ts
srsument that BE- proposed 90 limit hun 10 the ques
top whether conceding the sending ~ the letter a.
M Berzh did q a contempt. aud 81 " were con
tempt bow sheull Mr Brrgn purge himself from IL
Mr. Gerry said that tais presented mere n"Heu
question Of law. anil h should arSue u a.
sncn Al common law there we're tW0 classes
~ coufempts-sont smpt committed PHI sicaib
n pre,ence OF tnc Caart ana constructive coniempis
which applied % aiu0.t anything II vas the g~at
v,r ia the sar C.aubtr court IN o. oppression, aud
the threat Of one ~ Shakespeare characters, I'll
make a star Chamrcr mater Of 90" was no idle or
su,nfv ono TIE general power concerning coutempis
t,d teen limited and de errtd ~ the Revised Statutes
r tsaa and the r.v-crs xprcssy stated that 70 Was
their D trpo-e o. hmIt ard d,lue d. Ibey made TX
CLASSES OF contempts OF uses in t1e Immediate We"
ana prosene1 u court breaches OF The peas com
Initted IN court oiso1ceuce 20 BE- orders resisting To-
process refusing Do % testify before A. ana
nskiar false roper Of its proceeding.
me Recorder asked % not dC -'icd n The ltIck
lev case that the Crlnd jury part Of the Court
and constructivey always Do it, presence u TINS tit
did not come wilma first eisss ~ the statute % ed
not come within either oi the others NJ Gerry sad
he I'D no. uBier,tlud thit che Hlc-y dd 80 de
eide Ia that case Mr. tcley rc'u.ed 20 answer
1uesrioa on an indictment then under consideration.
lie was brought into and the Court ordered hun
20 answer lie SIN refutsi t., Court az Appeals
held that ns rofusa thr spot waiver of thc for
nav ~ gong aEan before thc Grand Jury aud thcre
refusing II - came under ano irr statute. Inc
revi-ors allowed bus three cisss of constructive ron
fempi. They Del OFT an ate pt 90 a cac" he Grand
Iury They made tatt INSIDE 3r1nor tsye the tudrr
"a ilry trial TIE Gtnse must be committed wuln tae
immediate view aui or of TIE umc of the cnari
- that he has physical vision sud ~ fence 81" the ta
aud 10 must directly t,ul iuteTrupr The proceedings
or nnair the respect The Authority ~ he Court
An attemp, wa male ame three or four years 70
revive the commol Law doctrine. l. was supposed 10
De dosl ed ny certain Ii-es VINO dlsked the comments
OF the press il attempt they found necessary
70 have a statute enacted, sai tne press ana the Bar
Association took altin ard defeated e. Any of use
not ~ the ium a'e presence 81 the Court must ne
brought before 10 by evidence crrnclie. Immediate
view seemed certainly tle an'lpoics OF constructive
preseuc'.
But a. 30 the farts W Gerry submitted rr.t the pre-
sentiment was false -.,l1- M B'r2h wa- party 20
proceeding TIE oplc. on the complunt % Alo'zo
= Evans was the party GA side -hersou ta-pea-
ter on the other NJ. Earch not party. The COM
plant was dismissed b. &. The Grand jury had 10
power To review or reconsider that action. The letter
sent 10 them on could not therefore b. intended
10 inn euce their consideration Of mnt-r pending
before them. There DO menace IN me letter read
90 not mean tins censtrc;" o. expires ~ dis
claimed anv eu'ipn charge tnr the jury Rad not
acted coascieouo1>lv. on Dec lo I,t. warrant had
been taken out a:t'"s' Crpeuror. On enJer.as ns
TiDg on the cro.ni and bIoIdv: q notorious
d.4.drhcr, SPONGE aul pals aut other coucomtlnt-
~ dog pt Wcr- present saoHlug ihe rum OF l4e re-
iiN ., ii. .,I e. r. ,... nm. IL. ,,a.upi,,nt and
jle magistrate ncl Carp. utc~ 70 nh SIR B-rsh cont
sIteu Cac d me A-s-t9r Dt.tur, Attorney ava was
tod Lee hsd cl.r. D. r-I bad tr-u aui n1riz-d OF