The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-02-12
JUDGE HAMMOND's SENTENCE
In the Matter OF Contempt OF the
United States Count.

In the United States Court yester.
day morning Mr.. Ham Patler on filed
bis answer TO the order Of Judge
Hammond citing him to appear and
show cause why he should not be held
in contempt for asaaulting Mr.. New
man Erb in the courtroom. The an.
swer, in brief, stated that Mr.. Patter-
son had no intention Of insulting the
court, and that, as the court had taken
recess, he did not think that the
court could be involved. Without ar
gument, Judge Hammond delivered
the following decision, which settles
the case:
JUDGE HAMMoND's DECISION.
1t is rude discouItesy to a court
and grave attack upon the dignity CT
the authority to which the court be-
longs to use its courtroom as fighting
ground under any circumstances,
even though the court be in re-
cess and the judge not upon
the bench. The circumstances Of
this case show that the re-.
spondent bad no intention or thought
OF any incivility to the court or the
Judge upon the bench, and the cause
Of the rencounter had no connection,
near or remote, to the court or any OF
its proceedings. The mistake OF the
respondent was in assuming that when
the judge left the bench he might, 80
far as the court was concerned, pro-
coed to accomplish his purpose OF max
ing the ASSAULT, supposing that 1t was
only when the judge was upon the
bench that any question OF contempt
could arise. But it must be apparent
to every one that this is misconcep.
ton and far too technical to admit Cf
approval anywhere. A court would
deserve the contempt OF public
opinion ii 1t perm tied go narrow
view OF its prerogatives to prevail,
and could not complain, If during its
recess, the courtroom should be used
for cockpit or convenient place to
erect prize ring. That is the logic OF
the false assumption that was made in
this case. But wholly aside from this
consideration there is q principle OF
protection to all who are engaged in
and about the proceedings OF a count
that requires preservation against mis-
behavior of this kind. The defendant
in court whose attorney was at acked
is entitled to the protection OF the
court against any personal violence
toward its attorney while he is in at
tendance on the court. Otherwise,
attorneys might be driven from the
court, or deferred from coming TO it,
or be held in bodily fear while in at
tendance, and thereby the admins
tration Of justice be INSTRUCTED. This
principle might be pressed beyond
reasonable limits, TO be sure, but it
is not going beyond the true
confines OF the doctrine to apply it
here. 1t protects parties, Jurors, wit
n esses, the officers of the count and all
engaged in and about the business OF
the court, even from the service OF
civil process while in attendance on
the court, and certainly should pro-
t sct an attorney at the bar from the
and attack Of those who
would do him personal violence. A
former ruling OF this court on that
subject has been especially approved
by very high authority. U. s. We.
81 Fed. Rep. 761 Sharon
vs.. Hill, "a Fed. Rep. 726. The only
trouble l have in such cases is in fix
ing the proper punishment. / have
always thought that should invari-
ably impose imprisonment on all wi o
should fight in this court as the only
adequate punishment for go grave
IN oflense. Here, however, was
! misconception OF the general
subject and an honest belief |
hat no wrong to the court could be
implied from the transaction. The &C.
,urrence took place at recess, and !
while do not deem this at all mats !
.ial as mitigation OF the offense, it
the basis of respondents as
that the count could not be |
involved in the.matter, 1t is only this |
nisapprehension that causes me to nit !
gate the punishment. Hereafter there
AN be no misunderstanding on this
,oint, and while this case will be a
precedent for the principle we would
,nforce, it will not be considered such
IS to the character Of the punishment
Inflicted. The respondent will be ad-
judged in contempt of the court and
med 500 and pay the cost of this pro
eeding and stand committed until the
Inc and costs ale paid.
THE FINE PAID.
Mr.. Patterson at once paid the fine
nd costs, amounting in all to Sl24,
nd the case was dismissed.
Cotton Failure Rt New Orleans.
ERw ORLEANS, La, February H.
hilbert II. Green & Co., cotton factors,
allied to-day. The trouble was caused
I