Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1884-03-13
A JUST DECISION.
PUNISH THE EDITOR OF THE REGISTER
For Contempt Of Court in Publishing Mat
ter Rejecting on the Tru,hfu!ness
Of Witness in a Grim
inal Case.
Special 10 the Rs9ister.

| WESTON, March l2.-followlng Is the
ruling in full Of Judge Brannon on the
motion OF the Prosecuting Attorney to
| punish the editor Of the REGISTER for con-
tempt Of Court: Louis Bennett, Esq, the
Prosecuting Attorney, moves the Court for
q rule against Lewis Baker, as an owner
and publisher Of the Wheeling REGISTER, q
public newspaper, to show cause why he
shall not be fined and attached for con-
tempt, for the publication in the issue Of
that paper of the 7th instant of the follow
ing Communication:
Especial to the Register:
WESTON, March 6.-The Circuit Court
convened at thts place Monday, March 8,
Judge Brannon on the bench who deliv-
cred his charge to the grand jury in his
usual forcible and sensible manner. The
Jury adjourned Wednesday, after finding
seven indictments-one for shooting with
intent to kill, ore for murder, two for car
rying concealed weapons, and three against
LIQUOR dealers. The case Of the State
against young Gibson was continued. The
Norris case will come up to morrow, and
promises to be interesting, as q good deal OF
false swearing is looked for on the part OF
lawyers ale anxious to get to scare him,
which
Will Give General Satisfaction
TO the community. The Republicans OF
This county are confident OF carrying ii this
fall, and are making strong efforts for the
coming campaign. Lewis has ten candi.
dates for Sheriff, seven for Assessor and
FIVE for Circuit Clerk. Andrew Edmiston
is favorably spoken of for State Senator,
and Judge John Brannon is solicited by
the people OF Lewis and adjoining counties
to allow his name for Governor"
The clause Of this publication which h
complained of is this: The Norris Cas-
will come up TO morrow aud promisesto
be interesting, as a good deal Of false swear.
ipg is looked for OH the part OF the prore-
culing witness, and defendants lawyars
are anxious to get u scare him, which will
give general satisfaction 20 the commu'
nifty
MIR. Bennett cites this passage from
Bishops criminal law 10 support his mot on:
ANY publication, whether by parties or
strangers, which concerns cause pending
in court, and Laa tendency to rejudicr
the public respecting It's merits and cor.
rupts the administration OF justice; or
which reflects on the tribunal or Its pro-
ceedings or on the parties, the jurors the
witnesses or the counsel,
May BE Visited as Contempt"
At the outset question has occurred to
me as to the powers Of the Court in this
matter.
Unauestionably the common law vests
in the courts great and extensive powers In
matters Of contempt. Under the ancient
common law the powers were simply
enormous in some contempts. AS matter
OF historic legal interest we find that by
~ Iau h.f tho Nnrnnan Nnn-
quest striking in the Kings courts OF jus
tice or drawing a sword therein was death
felony. By an old English statute. shll In
existence, but obsolete, stroke or blow in
court is punishable by loss OF the right
hand, Imprisonment for life, and forfeiture
of goods and chsttels, and forfeits OF land
for life.
BY statute OF Edward III. striking
Juror in court was punishable py loss oil
the right hand and perpetual imprison.
ment. Even 30 late as the reign OF the
First Charles, a man was fined five thous'
and pounds then On enormous sum- and
compelled to 60 10 all the courts OF West.
minister Hall with paper on his head
showing his of1ense and make submission
to them, and was imprisoned during the
Kings pleasure, for charging one OF the
Judges with high treason.
These terrible penalties are, OF course,
They are unsuited to these days aud the
spirit OF liberty that has grown up,
Especially I'm This Free Country.
Still, the common law, outside OF the
statute limitations, vests great powers in
the courts IN these matters, and places in
their hands the weapons OF fine and inn
prisonnent without liked limits 10 carry
out these functions. The reason for vest.
ing the courts with these powers was ths,
without them they could not protect them
,,lvPs from violence and disorder, insult
and indig gnity, nor execute their DEGREES or
judgm, nis nor sdminister justice impair
tislly without outside influence or corrup
zion. And II Is necessary power. But
in dangerous hsnds IL may be dangerou.
power. And except as the statute restrain
these contemp's are tried and punished by
the court IN a summary manner, without
Indictment and without jury. And there
fore in had hands this power was the more
dapgerous. These considerations, CON.
piled with some instances in Virgins oi
arbitrary sction, caused the passage Of 40
act in 1881, which has continued ever since
and is found in our code, chapter li7, sec
tion q, reading:
"The courts and judges thereof may
issue attachments for contempt and pun
ish them summorily, only in the cases
following:
First
MiAbehayier in the Presence OF the
Court,
or so near thereto as to Obstruct or inter.
rupt the administration Of justice.
secondly-Yiolence or threats OF vio-
lence TO Judge or officer Of the court, or
10 a Juror witness or party going 70 at
tending or returning from the court for or
in respect Of any act or proceeding had or
TO be had in such court.
-Misbehavior OF an officer OF
the court In his official character.
"Fourthly-Disobedienc or resistance OF
any officer Of the court, juror, witness, or
other person TO any lawful process, judg
mept, decree or order Of said court"
Now observe, the purpose OF this aot 10
not to define contempt, not TO say what
shall be deemed contempt and what not
What was contempt before 1.-The act yet re-
re aims so. But the plain object OF the act
was 10 lessen, TO limit the power OF the
courts TO punish, In summary manner,
without indictment, presentment or jury.
II leaves TO the courts the power to thus
punish those contempts in the statute
specified; but by the mention OF these par.
ticular contempts and the use OF the word
''only" il negatives the power as TO other
couiempts sDd takes away as 70 them the
power which by the common law the court
wonld have.
cannot make any other senss out Of
the act
In view Of what tho CSmmon Law
was before It. Think | am sustained by
the unanimous decision Of the General
Court of Virginia In the case Of the Com,
mouvealth against Deskins, Leigh, IN
1894, when that court was composed OF
twenty Circuit Judges, among them Rich.
ard z. Parker, Lewis Summers, Abel p.
Upsbur, John r. JomaI, Lucas p. Thomp-
son, Edwin 8. Duncan and Joseph L. Fry,
whose nsmes yet live undimmed by time.
The court held that without intimsting -
opinion, Deskins might no. b proceeded
sesinst by Indictment or information, yet
since the statute OF 1881 limiting the
powers Of the courts 10 infiet Punishment
for eoniempts, the acts imputed TO the rule
to him did not amount to cootenpt pun
isbsble in o summary manner as contem'
plated by the role. and diseharged IL.
do not think this dispatch 10 the REI
urKR contsins matter vhich is . oontsulpt
punishable In o summary manner ~ the
court urder the statute quoted. 20 not
decide on the cbarscteR Of the matter COM
a L. cnnkau, n ,,k.