Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-12-10
CONTEMPT OF COURT.
ARGUMENTS INTENDED TO SHOW WHAT
CONSTITUTES THE ACT.
Hearing of the Case of Mckay and Others
Against the Publishers of the
Evening Bee"

The case of G. W. Mckay and others
against McClatchy & Co., for alleged con.
tempt of Court, in publishing afidavits in.
tended to prejudice the injunction case re-
Gently heard before Judge Armstrong,
came up in the latter's Court yesterday
morning Judge Armstrong was not
present, he considering himself disqualified
from sitting in the case, hence the Court
was presided over by Judge A. ]. Buckles
of Solano. Grove L. Johnson and Judge
James Mcguire appeared for the complain.
ants and Judge S. G. benson and A. G.
Hinkson for the respondents.
Mr.. Johnson addressed the Court in sup
port of the applicants motion that the Bee
proprietors be declared in contempt of
Court in publishing certain affidavits DUR
ing the time OF the trial of their in
junction suit against the complain
ants in this case. He called atten-
ton of the Court to the fact that the
respondents admitted that they published
the attidaviIs for the purpose of influencing
the public. 1t was not question as to
whether or not the publication of the
afhdayits had actually influenced the
Court. The fact that the afidaviis
could and might have done so was
sufficient to substantiate the compliant.
Judge Armstrong is one member of the
Sacramento public, and, therefore, is in
Guided in the respondents statements that
their interest was TO influence the public
in short it was their intention to influence,
intlmldate and corrupt the Court, accord
ing to the scope of their own admission
They knew that the case on trial at that
time was being heard solely on their own
complaint, without testimony on the part
of the defendants in that case, and knew
that the publications referred to would have
the direct effect OF influencing the Court.
Mr.. Johnson then quoted from Section
1909 Of the Code of Civil Procedure to
show what constituted contempt of Court
The Supreme Court had held that the
mere sending of letter to member of
the Grand Jury was contempt OF Court. and
if this be so the publication of affidavits or
other matter-while case was pending
calculated to influence the Court, must GER
talnly be contempt of more aggravated
character.
In the original ipjun ction case the pro-
ceedings were simply on demurrer. The
defendants demurred on the ground that
the plaintiffs had no testimony with which
to substantiate the allegations in their COM
plant, and sought to correct the defects
in that complaint by securing and publish
ing these sffidavits.
Judge Buckles-"Had these published
affidavits been filed in the Office of the
Clerk of the Court?"
Mr.. Johnson-"No, sir; they were never
| filed, but were kept locked in the safe of
their counsel"
Counsel then called attention 10 the
| flaming headlines employed to attract at
| tention to the afidavits, and which he
| claimed were intended to mislead many
| persons, who would not read ali the con-
| tents of the several columns of affidavits
| He quoted from an editorial statement in
the Bee referring to the affidavits, to show
that the intention had been to influence
the Court. Theplaintiffs in that case knew
! that it was to be decided on the complaint
and published the affidavits in order to
give strength to that complaint. 1t would
be contempt of Court for an individual to
| warn Judge that, if he did not decide
case in certain way, dire and terrible re-
suits would follow to the community. And
| if that would be contempt, certainly it
| was contempt to do the same thing through
| the columns of a newspaper, and intended
for the Judges eye.
Mr.. Johnson spoke at great length in his
| argument, holding that newspaper men
were amenable to the same laws that con-
tTUlieu luc 6Cts Vi OtDeE CltlZSDS. he
closed his argument at II o'clock.
At the afternoon session, Mr.. Johnson
submitted number of authorities, which
he asked the Court to examine.
ARGUMENT OF JUDGE benson.
Judge benson, of counsel for the re-
spondents (McClatchy & Coz, then began
his argument in reply to the complaint.
He argued that the publications in the Bee
of the affidavits referred to were perfectly
harmless, and could in no way prejudice
| the Court in its judgment. Newspapers
| had perfect right to publish the news of
| the day, for the information of the public,
| and there was nothing IN the act of the
respondents that could possibly work any
injury to the plaintiffs in this case. judges
OF Courts are not governed in their action
By the accounts of legal proceedings pub
lished in the newspapers. 1t was the duty
of the press to keep the public informed as
| to such proceedings, and it was done daily.
| He denied that the respondents were in
| any way interested in the delivery of the
paper containing such affidavits to the
| Judge, or even knew Of paper being left
regularly at his residence until after they
had been cited for contempt; that the city
routes of the Bee are owned by persons
over whom these plaintiffs have no control
as to where they shall or shall not deliver
| Papeis, anu my "ele IL Ho way iespou-
sioie for any special or regular delivery by
such agents.
counsel read the aihdavlts and comments
thereon published IN the Bee during the
hearing OF the injunction suit, and claimed
that they contained no expression that was
not strictly within the publishers privilege
to make public. Inc afhdavits were pub.
tSa. ~ I, ;ne AuoH
| the bovcotters had heen coTnmit.ed and
the publishers had a right to pnblish than
| IF the same statements had been made edi.
toriaIlv If would have been nerfectlv
proper: and if proper in that case If was
eonally so to publish the same statements
in the shane of sworn affidavits.
| Counsel further argued that if would he
nerfectIv nroner for snv newsnaner IN nuh.
Iish the testimony given in q murder ex.
animation case and To give its conclusions
as to the probable innocence or guilt of the
accused. He claimed that the respondents
as parties dlrectiy interested IN the case,
were perfectly lustiueo IN MAKING tnelr
own statement OF the Iacts 10 the same
puoiic 10 when tnelr adVersaries mad ap-
peaieo In me enort 70 destroy the former
business Ihey mad the rlght TO DO TINS IN
order 10 protect tnelr business ana tneir
property-to secure, II possible, suspen-