The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-11-13

government we're deceived aud naisled by the
pateniee. That the government authorized
both By the Constitution and the statutes 70
bring suits at law and 10 equity, should nnd its
duty to correct this evil. 70 recall these patents
aad to give a remedy for this fraud. is 90 clear
ss TO need no argument. and the proper remedy,
it seems to the court. Is the one adopted by the
government in this case.
In conclusion, the court says that there 10
nothing in the provisions contained in Section
1920 expressing sn intention Of limiting the
power of the United States 20 get rid Of patent
obisinsd from II by fraud or deceit; aud, al
though the Legislature may have given pri-
vste individuals O limited form Of relief, the
court thinks that this was not intended TO super-
sede the Affirmative relief to which the United
States is entitled
The decree of the Circuit Court Of MassAchu,,
se;ts dislnissiug the governments bill is all,
therefore, reversed. and the remanded to
that court with directions 20 override the de-
murrer, with leave TO the defendants 10 plead or
answer. or both within a reasonable time TO
De liked by that court Orinicn by Mr.. justice
Miller.
Mr. Justice Gray was not present at the srgu-
ment, end took no pert in the decision OF this
case.
The Supreme Court also rendered an adverse
decision in the some what celebrated case of
Judge Terry, OF California, upon his application
for writ of habeas corpus in which he alleges
that he 10 upla wfuliy inprisoned under an
der of the United States Circuit Court for the
Northern district of California 10 the Jail Of
Alameda county. After presenting the case
made by the application, the decision says:
"Wba;, then, are the grounds upon which the
petitioner claims the Circuit Court was without
jurisdiction TO make the order committing him
TO jaili They are. first, that the order was made
in his absence; second, that il made without
his having any previous notice OF the intention
of the coart to take any steps whatever in re-
lAtion to the matters referred 20 IN
the order; third, that it vas made with
out giving him any opportunity OF beina
first heard in defense OF the charges therein
made against him. The second and third Of
these grounds may be dismissed as immsterial
IN any INQUIRY which this court is at liberty up-
on this original application 70 make. For upon
the facts recited r the order OF commitment,
showing OF contempt committed in the
face Of the court, which tended TO destroy It's
authority and to embarrass and oostruct its
business by violent methods, the petitioner WAS
not entitled of absolute right either to demand
n trial or notice by rule of the courts intention
TO proceed against him, or 10 any opportunity 70
make formal answer to the charge contained In
the order of commitment"
Tue decision says 1t is undoubtedly general
rule that a sentence pronounced against party
without hearing him. or giving him su oppor-
tunity TO be heard-s not iudscial determins-
tion of his rights and 1t 10 not entitled to re-
spect in any other tribunal, but declares that
there is another rule which 10 equally vital TO
personal liberty and TO the preservation OF
organized society. IL has relation to the class
Of contempis which. being committed IN the
face Of a court, imply q purpose 10 destroy it's
authority, or TO insult, or TO intmidate those
charged with the duty of administering the law.
Numerous authorities and precedents are cited,
upon which the decision concludes that it wss
competent for the Circuit Court. Immediately
upon the commission. In its presence, OF the con-
tempt recied IN its order OF Sept 5, 1883,
10 proceed upon its own knowledge of the facts
eud imprison the offender without further proof,
end without issue OF trial In any form. and says:
"lt was not bOund TO hear any explaDstion OF
his motives, II it was satisfied. and We must con-
clusively presume 10 was satisfied. from what
occurred under Its own eye aud within ite hear
ins, and that the ends of justice demanded i'm
mediate action, aud that no explanation could
mitigate his offense or disprove the fact that he
had committed such contempt as deserved In
slant punishment Whether the facts really
justified such punishment for the Circuit
Court TO determine, and its conclusion upon such
facts is not open to inquiry or reyisw IN this col
lateral proceeding"
As to the affirmation that the order Of Sept 2
was void because it was made in the absence OF
the petititioner, the decision saws: "Juriscic-
ton OF the person OF the petitioner attached IN
stantly upon the contempt being committed IN
the presence of the court That jurisdiction
was not surrendered, nor was it lost by any .rcs-
sousble delay in exercising the power TO pro
ceed, without notice and proof, To imnedihts
punishment The absence Of the petitioner
from the courtroom, IN Pnother room
near by. In the same huhding. a. he
time the order was made, wAs bis voluntary
act ." The petiriOper's miseehsvior in
the presence of the court, his voluntarily leav-
ing the courtroom his going into the inarshaIs
room, and the making OF the order o: commit
ment, was in substance one occasion. They
constituted in legal effect. on continuous COM
plete transaction and the jurisdiction of the
court to enter order for the offender's arrest
and imprisonment was full and complete as
when be was in the courtroom in the immediate
presence Of the Judge" Decision by Justics
Harlan.
The court affirmed the decision OF the Circuit
Court for the Southern district OF New York in
the case of ex-Alderman Jsehne. now under
going sentence in Sing Sing. This keeps him
in prison.