The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-03-03
VERY LIGHT PENALTY
The Trustees Escape by the Pay
ment of Costs.
A SHORT, SWEET LECTURE ON LAW
The Paper Writing" Having been Withdrawn
the offence is CondOned, and the De-
PENDANTS are Released.

| Upon a former day of this court, T. G.
Bailey, Rudolph Aft, J. f. Mllspaugh and
L. .. Goliath came into this court with {
paper writing, which was read TO the court
by their counsel, and which at that time
was taken under advisement by the court
said paper writing purporting upon thei1
part to be a withdrawal from the invest
cation which they had instituted under d
petition heretofore filed by them in this
cause.
After full consideration by the court at q
subsequent day, an opinion was delivered
which held that the paper referred to was
a contemptuous proceeding, and that the
parties who signed the same
WE'RE GUILTY OF CONTEMPT
in the face Of the court The opinion SC
rendered is now upon the files Of this court,
in this case, and is referred to as showing
the action of the court. Al order was
thereupOn entered in pursuance Of the
opinion as follows:
I'm this case it is ordered that the clerk
of this court issue written notice to each
of the persons, Rudolph Alf. J. T. Mills
paugh, L. L. Goliath and T. c. Bailey, re-
quiriug taem to appear before this court on
January 80, 1889, at 10 am, to show cause
why they should not be punished for their
contempt: and in case they fail to appear
the clerk will issue writS of attachment for
their arrest, and to bring them forthwith
before this court
In accordance with that Judgment the
order herein directed was issued, and the
parties, on the Goth day of January, came
into court ana fled their sworn answer, in
which they set out much matter that is
wholly irrelevant to the Judgment they
were called upon to answer: but among
other things they say:
Your petitioners further represent that
they have acted in the best OF faith through
out this whole proceeding; that they have
tried to the best Of their ability to do their
duty, and consciously have made no attempt
10 tritie with the court; that
THEY BELIEVED THE STATEMENTS MADE
by them to the court TO be true; that they
did not think nor believe, nor had they the
slightest conception that those statements
are scurrilOus, insOlent or contemptuous in
any particular; that nothing was farther
from their minds than the making of any
insinuatiOn or charge against the court, or
of stating anything that would be cOnsid-
cred contemptuous by the court" It then
prayed that they might be discharged from
such contempt proceedings.
Upon the request OF the defendants that
they might be heard in their behalf before
the court, opportunity has been given to
them, and their case has been ably, ear
nestly and respectfully submitted before
this court by two able counsel. 1t will be
seen, however, that although the argument
Of counsel has taken a wide range, the
direct question before the court is the
proper construction of the paper fled
before this court, which is fully set out in
the opinion heretofore referred to. The
,-,n2 foi+I M tho attendants e NV
their counsel with much energy and conf
dence. Still, however, Notwithstanding
their good faith, they are
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LANGUAGE
used by them in any proceeding which they
may bring into this court, and it is not for
them nor their counsel to cOnstrue or TO say
what effect the language will have. This
direct question came before the supreme
court of California, in the case of McCOr-
mack VS. Sheridan. in the twentieth volume
of the Pacific Reporter, at page twenty
four. In that case the court shows
that "a petition for rehearing stated
that how or why the honorable
commissioner should have so effect
ually and substantially ignored and
disregar;ed the uncOntradicted testimony
we do not know. 1t seems that neither the
transcript nor our briefs could have fallen
under the commissioners observation.
There is not a scintilla of evidence to the
contrary, anI vet the honorable court as
sures and in very emphatic language says,
"a more disingenuOus and misleading
statement of the evidence could not be
made. 1t is substantially untrue and IN
warrantable. The decision seems to US to
be travesty of the evidence!' This is the
exact language which the supreme court of
California in that opinion found to have
been contained in the brief and petition
!
that case for a rehearing, upon which it
was held by the court that the counsel
drafting the petition was guilty of con-
| tempt. committed in the face Of the court
Notwithstanding
| A DIsAvowAL OF DIsREsPECTPUL INTENTIONS.
The court distinctly says: ''These dis
Chalmers by the respondent we accept as
| true, so far as it is possible to do so with
out giving a strained construction to the
| language used by him in his petition for re-
hearing. 1t may be that he acted in good
faith and without any design, wish, or ex-
pectation of committing any contempt, and
we accept the explanation in palliation of
| the offense: but the language we have
| quoted from this petition for rehearing is
too plain and direct in the imputation of
negligence and bad faith to authorize us to
| take this avoWal of the defendant as
sufficient to purge him of contempt AS
was said in the matter Of Woolley, II Bush.
| 1909: eve recognize to the utmost reason
able limit of its application, the rule that a
supposed contempt, consisting in mere
words, which are apparently intended to be
scandalous and offensive, but which are at
all susceptible of different construction,
may be explained or construed by the
speaker or writer of them upon his sworn
disavowal Of intention to commit a con-
tempt, and proceedings against him will at
once be discontinued. But this rule does
not control where the matter spoken or
written is of itself necessarily offensive and
insulting. In such case the disavewal of
an intention to commit q contempt A. 81,
-, - NAY TKSD TO EXCUSE, e..
but it cannot and will not Justify the act.
People VS.. Freer, l Gaines, 4S5.) The in
tention to be offensive may be disavowed.
and the particular language used to make
the charges or imputations may be with
drawn, but the effect on the paper or publ
cation, the ideas conveyed or charges and
imputations made, may remain Notwith-
standing in that case disclaimer by the
attorney who filed that paper, of the
strongest character, the court proceeded to
adjudge him guilty of contempt and as
seSsed a fine upon him of $3.50 as a judg-
ment for his contumacy.
In this case the court has adiUdged that
these parties are guilty of contempt by
reason of the fact that the language of the
paper brought into court by them and read
to the court was of itself contemptuous
proceeding. 1t was one that this court
could not pass by and maintain its dignity
and standing as a court before the com
munity. 1t has been truly said that the
dignity of the court is its life, its vitality,
- . h. IL. Z =-1F