Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1884-07-08
THE SUPREME COURT
Renders a Decision and Verdict in
the Contempt Case.
The Editorial Held to Be Libelous---]ohn
Frew Fined $25 and c. 3.
Hart $500 The
Syllabus.

terday morning at 10 o'clock and at once
proceeded to dispose of the Intelhgencer
contempt case. The defendants, Messrs.
Frew and Hart, were present with their
counsel, and there was respectable attend
ance of lawyers and other interested specta-
tors, including group Of ladies. The
unanimous decision of the court, holding
the editorial of June 18th to be fbelous,
was very voluminous, covering one hundred
pages of legal cap, But while agreeing in
this decision, the judges differed somewhat
in the nature Of the punishment to be
awarded. President Johnson and Judges
Wood and Snyder
FIXED UPON A FINE
oftwenty-fve dollars in the case Of Mr.. Frew,
and three hundred dollars in the case of Mr..
Hart, together with costs. Judge Green
dissented in that he thought the sentence
too light. In dissenting from his colleagues
he held that nothing short OF imprisonment
in addition to the fine would yindicate the
Court. He stated that not only did he think
Mr.. Hart ought TO be imprisoned as well as
fined, but also that a rule ought to be issued
against the counsel, Messrs. Hubbard and
Hutchinson, for the answers filed by them,
because he thought 1t prima tacia appeared
that they knew the editorial complained Of
was false In this view, however, none Of
tbs other members OF the Court concurrcd.
Mr.. Hubbard made an explanation, in the
course Of which he said the reason why they
had fled in such a manner as they had was
because of certain information he had re-
ceived, which, if the Court desired, he would
state. The Court did not ask for the informa-
ton, because, in their opinion, it would have
been
MANIFESTLY IMPROPER
to have made any such inquiry. After SEN
tence had been passed the defendants were
handed over to the custody Of Sheriff Brown
until such time as the fine should be paid.
About 40 o'clock the Intelligencer firm
check for S325''and crier's costs was handed
over and the defendants were discharged.
johnson, President, delivered the opinion
of the court, which was very elaborate, re-
viewing all the authorities cited by the Coun-
sci for respondent, and many Others and
the court reached the following conclusions,
Judge Green, as above stated, dissenting to
the sentence only.
syllabus.
First-Wherc a contempt is not commit
tod in open court, the usual course is 10
issue n rule TO show cause why an attach
ment Should not issue though the attach
mcnt sometimes issues in the first instance.
ScCond-Such rule is usually found in
cases OF constructive contempt, on an aih-
dsvit or other sworn statements o! the facts
constituting the alleged contempt; but this
is not always essential. The court NAV act
on its own information, or on the unsworn
statement of q member of the bar, in cases
where the facts are clear aud unmiStaka5le,
suchaS cOntemptuous publication in a news
paper.
fhird.-Where the rule has issued on an
unSworu statement Of counsel, though 1t
NAV he defective in form or substance, yet
if the defendant appears and answers ad-
hitting the facts sufficient to constitute
THE OFFENSE ALLEGED
against him, the Court will not regard the
objections to the proceedings for the want
of an affidavit, or sworn statement, or on
account Of defects in the rule, though the
objection is made in his answer.
Fourth.-The Supreme Court Of Appeals
of this State has the constitutional power to
punish, as for contempt the publication of
a libel on the Court, or the judges thereof
acting in their judicial capacity, made
during the term of the Court, with reference
to a case then pending and undecided.
Fitth-Ghis power to Summarlty punish
contemp,s is inherent in all constitutional
courts, springing into existence upon their
creation, as
NECESSARY INCIDENT
to the exercise of he powers conferred upon
them, and applies as well TO constructive as
direct contempts.
Si1th-Theactof the Virginia Legislature
of 1881 in reference to punishments for
conteapts of courts, which has been handed
down through successive Codes, and now
found in chapter AZ of the Code Of this
State vas not intended, and does not apply
to thu Supreme Court of Appeals.
Ssysntb-In this State the power Of the
Supreme Court of Appeals, to punish sum-
marily, both direct and constructive con-
tempts, is the same as it exists at common
Lac
Eighth-A publication in a newspaper in
the city whsr. the Supreme Court Of APP
peals is sitting, with reference to case
then pending and undetermined, charging
three Of the four Judges OF the court with
a nding political eau US more than a
year before and in the caucus advising
tie action
OFT or WHICH THE CASE AROSE,
and promising the caucus to h I'D its action
legal and proper, and charging the court
with agreeing to decide the case before an
approaching political convention for politi-
cal purpose, is a contempt Of said court
which it may summarily furnish.
The case was ably argued by W. P. Hub
bard and John \. Hutchinson.
Johnson, president after an exhaustive
review of the authorities, among other
things, in delivering the opinion Of the
court, said that in all the authorities to be
found IN the subject, not court Of last re-
sort upon the constitutional question OF the
right of the legislature to take away the
Inherent power of constitutional court to
punish constructive contempts had affirmed
that such legislative power existed, but a
number Of courts upon discussion of the
question had
DECIDED THE CONTRARY.
II is decided here in the argumen. that
it is not within the. legislative will to take
from courts the inherent power possessed
bv them 10 punish coutempts committed in
The face of the court: but it is insisted that
the Legislature may at will deprive the
courts of the power to punish summarily
constructive, contempt such as that dis
cussed in the rule,
1T common law, as clearly appears in
Daudridge's case, , Va. cases, the power 10
punish for uch Constructive ContemptS vas
as much an inherent, because a necessary
power as to punish for direct con
iempts. And, as we have SEEN
this position is abundantly sustained
by authority. And does not the reason for
the existence Of the power as much obtain
in TIE one case as the other?
If an attorney at the bar in quiet way
should charge the court with being bribed
to decide the case under argument against
his client, no one would for moment doubt
the right Of the court to summarily punish
hin, Gov Sunb coDtaD,D+ Wbv9 No, ha.