The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-03-15
LETTERS FROM THE PEOPLE.
Contempt OF Court.

"a the Editor OF the indianapolis Journal;
notice in you issue of the 9Th inst. An item
.,ndar the caption Holman Is Guilty. referrine
~ The case of George W. Holman vs. the State
No 12242), decided by the Supreme Court
March s. This item, together with the fact that
,hs opinion of the court, as announced, fails to
golly present the case to the public or to the pro
s,.csion leads me, as one acquainted with the
s.cts to ask space in your paper for the follow.
Jog statement
The case was proceeding against the above
FAMED appellant for an alleged direct contempt
- court The statement filed by the Judge is
.rhstantially set out in the opinion, and need
not be repeated here. To this an answer was
sed in substance as follows (omitting the formal
parts:
That at the time of the commission Of the acts
.omnlained of as constituting the offense de-
Ssndant was an attorney at the bar of this court,
and as such had been employed to assist and
cas- then assisting, the prosecuting attorney in
ara trial of criminal cause then in hearing be-
fora the Jury; that the court we'll knew Of said
smnlovment, and I'D to the time or the alleged
oganse had recognized said Holman as an attor-
nav in the case-had permitted him to examine
witnesses for the State; that while engaged in
tba examination of a witness said Holman asked
a ouestion, to which an objection was sustained
bv the court, who Immediately said to defendant
md his associate counsel You don't seem to
have any theory about this case; it is marvellous
that you cannot step within a reasonable dis
tanee of the issues. / never knew SO many odds
and ends to be brought into a case before"
Thereupon defendant arose to offer an explana-
tion in response to the court; but the court re-
fnssd to hear him. Defendant then said: 'I
have been employed as counsel in this case,
and believe l have right to be heard
in behalf of my client and further said, "If your
honor will hear q wori"-at which point he was
interrupted by the court with the remark, Not
word" spoken in loud and impatient tone,
and in great anger commanded defendant to 'sit
down." Defendant replied that he had . right
10 stand and be heard in behalf of the interests
he was paid to represent. The court, in extreme
anger, again commanded him to fsit down.
which defendant refused to do. And defendant
SAYS that, throughout all the foregoing, his Ian
Ruage and manner to the court was respectful;
that his refusal to sit down when commanded
was actuated by belief that, as an employed,
uaid and acting attorney in the case in hearing,
he had right to be heard. And defendant SAYS
as to the words, II viii get even with you, the
same in substance, he did say; but he says that
at the time he was in the custody of the sheriff,
who was removing him from the courtroom, as
the court had ordered, etc. Subscribed and
sworn to.
The explanatory portions of this answer were
in response to the statement Of the court omitted
from the opinion, and which ls as follows:
IN the trial Of said cause before
jury, said Holman appeared on the part of the
State and assumed to ask questions of witness
then upon the stand, but by what authority the
court was not then and is not now advised"
This shows the animus of the judge. It is
said in the judges statement and repeated in the
opinion, that defendant had insisted upon max
ing IN argument upon q question which the
ant shows that he had no such purpose; in fact,
arose for quite different purpose. The defend
ant, it is quite as likely know his objects
as the Judge, and although he swears in his
answer that his object was to make an explana-
ton, the Supreme Court hold that, notwith-
standing this, he did rise to ''argue q question"
because the judge has said so in the statement
fled.
The reason assigned by the Supreme Court for
not setting out this answer in the opinion is, that
1t was Intellectual as against the statement of
the trial judge that the court could not yield to
1t n the face of such statement, but were abso-
lutely bound to accept the version of the trial
Judge as true. It has for years been settled
that. in Indiana, the right of appeal existed in
such cases. We have in this State q statute
defining contempt and defining the extent and
mode of punishment. A proceeding to punish
for contempt is in almost every essential feature
Q criminal case. Except that, in ordinary Grim
inAl cases. the pleading filed by the State is
called an indictment or information. and is pre-
sented by the grand jury. or filed by the prose
are exactly identical Contempts are prosecuted
In the name of the State; the punish
ment may be fne or impris-
onment, or both; If the formes
only, 1t is payable to the State, and when paid
becomes part of the common school fund, like
a.. vns1 Z
seems clear that contempts of court are 80 far
considered crimes as to become the proper sub
jeet Of legislation
The Legislature, with view, no doubt, Of pre-
venting Injustice by prescribing simple and
uniform mode of procedure and punishment in
tsmpts of court, and fixing the penalty. 1t may
be conceded that the Circuit Court has the
power, independent of statute to punish for con-
tempt 1t is equally true, that to steal the
property Of another is larceny, independent of
any statute defining the offense. The statute on
power Of the courts. It defines the offense,
and fixes the mode and extent Of the
punishment. So much, it would seem, the Leg
stature might do. to the end that all might
know the extent of their liberties, and that the
punishment might be uniform throughout the
State and not dependent upon the within or pas
sion of the presiding Judge. This is certainly no
invasion by the Legislature of coordinate
branch Of government. 1t is in harmony with
the spirit of our institutions 1t has long been
settled that in case of contempt the defendant
might appeal to the Supreme Court If, as de-
cided in the case in question, the Supreme Court
is bound by what is said by the trial judge, why
recognize the right of appeals 1t could not avail
In any case The court disregards the statute
except in so far as it grants the right Of appeal.
the statute has any force, it has full force It
is difficult to harmonic this decision with the
statute, and we apprehend that the bar of the
State win be slow to accept the former as
sound exposition of the law. B.
ROCHESTER,, March IL.
The State-House Plumbing.