The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1886-01-05
gha GltteILigenta1.
omes, Nos. as and q FourIsanIh strset.
APPLAUSE IN COURT ROOMS.

- - : =
Decision Upon the Abass That May People
NV Halsn, -
Many persons who frequent courts in
this city seem to regard the proceedings,
however important, as a sort Of entertain
msnt, and feel entirely at liberty to greet
any odd or humorous saying Of q witness
with laughter, or the expression Of any
sentiment that pleases them with Rp-
plRuse, more or lesa pronounced. Bnt oil
late demonstrations OF applause, owing to
the stern exercise Of Judicial power ofpun-
ishment for contempt in number Of In
stances, are rare, and are confined, % a
rule, to the moment when the verdict in q
case that has excited much attention Ia
rendered. They are quickly cut short
with sharp raps OF the Judicial gayel and
an impressive sdmonitlon. Laughter,
however, Is harder to guard against or sup
press, especially when Enthusiastically
humorous witness, who says no end OF
bright things in rapid succession,
b on the witnesB stand When
the Judges Ravel falls some un.
thinking spectators look IS though they
thought the judge was as DFy.Rs-dust,
with no appreciation OF humor. They do
not, apparently, baar In mind that their
expression Of feeling may have an uu-
defnable influence upon the minds Of the
jury, who alter all are men, with sym.
pSthies that may BIZ affected by the at
mSsphere Of the prevailing sentiment in
the court room, 10 the credit Of the
judges Of the courts In this city, almost
without exception, 1t may BIZ said that
they are very wstChful OF the tempers OF
the audience, and promptly Teprove or
check unseemly demonstrations OF feeling.
A recent decision Of the supreme court OF
the State OF Texas hiss an interesting bear
ing upon this subject, In the csse OF
Owen against the state, an election case
recently decided and referred to in the
latest Issue Of The Albany Law Journal,
the highest court OF the Lone Star State
delivered Itself as follows;
II was shown that large number OF
persons attended the trial during the
whole time that It was In progress. When.
ever anything favorable 70 the relator 90,
cured they greeted 1t with bursts Of ap.
plause. The court checked these demon.
STATIONS from time TO time, but they were
renewed as often as similar occasions call
ed them forth, and they do not seem to
have been eleCtuslly and finally Quelled
until the trial was over. II lisa sad II not
humiliatlng thought that such unbs-
coming conduct in court OF justice could
not have been etfsCtually aud permanently
stopped upon its first demonstration. Tho
district courts are armed with full power
TO punish contempts. This was con.
tempt Of court Of q most serious character
calculated as 1t was 10 control the YER
dict OF the jury by outside influences. The
court would have been justified in using
the strong arm OF the law TO suppress this
conduct, or, II that failed, In stopping the
trial OF the case until II was finally assured
there would be no further demonstration.
As this was not done there Is nothing
to apply the rule universally enforced by
this court when the jury may have been
influenced In giving an incorrect verdict
by passion or prejudice, caused by the
misconduct OF others. We have, In such
cases, constantly reversed the judgment
and ordered q new trial. This 10 proper
case for the enforcement OF that rule.
The applause may not have influenced
the jury, and perhaps did not, but as 1t
had y tendency 80 to do, and the jury had
admitted one ballot,box and excluded
others upon substantially the same testi-
mony, there Is q probability that their
finding may have been affected, 10 some
measure, by the applause, however con-
sGisntiously they may have attempted 10
act in-mAking up their verdict.
y A new trial was granted.