The Opelousas courier. [volume] (Opelousas, La.) 1852-1910, 1894-02-24
OPELOUSAs PARISH LANDRY, La, FEBRUARY
The Contempt Case.

Five distinguished attorneys of the
Opelonsas bar, having respectfully de.
clined to defend colored boy (Jessie
Tyler) after being requested by the
Court to do 80. a motion was filed al
the request of the presiding Judge by
the District Attorney, for a rule on
them to chow cause why they should
not be punished for contempt of Court.
Judge Cullom volunteered to defend
them, and accordingly filed an answer
to the rule to which was snhjoined the
affidavits of the Attorneys. They said
they intended no contempt of the legal
authority of the Court, which under
ordinary circumstances. they would al
ways cheerfully recognize. That they
intended due respect for it, but that
under the peculiarities of the environ
ments Of the case, they felt constrained
to decline serving the boy Jessie Tyler.
That it was a matter of notoriety
among all the members of the bar at
this place, that certain officers of the
Court had been oficiously interfering
with their business for the purpose Of
throwing it in the hands of their pre-
ferred attorney; the result of which,
had been to take all the paying bust
ness of criminal character from them.
and to leave nothing but such as does
not pay.
We do not pretend to give this as
the answer verbatim, Or in extenso,
but only as some of the substance of
the answer. The argument of the rule
was opened by Judge Cullom on Tues
day morning, on behalf of the accused
parties.
On Wednesday morning he continu-
ed and finished his argument. Mr.. J.
N. Ogden arose, as the Amicus Cureat
of the Court, as he styled himself, and
began to make personal allusion to
other members Of the bar, having no
reference to the question of contempt,
wherenpon the Court called him to
order.
Mr.. Dubuisson, District Attorsey.
then addressed the Court in support
of the rule. He referred to some Com
mon law authorities on the subject and
spoke briefly to the point. The Conrt
took the rule under consideration saw
ing it Was matter of much Importance
which would necessarily serve as
prescedent for any future cases that
may arise of similar character
Judge Cnllom maintains that the mis-
demeanor of contempt ia not to be
by the broad doctrine of
the Common law in such cases That in
Louisiana We have no crimes, nffenses
and misdemeanors, bnt those that are
such by the statutes of
That the sectiun 900 of our
Rev. statutes adopts the Common law
IS to these matters, only so far as not
otherwise provided by our Stat. laws.
But as he says that as the Legislature
has defined what shall be considered a
Rev. statutes See. l24-5, it
liked the limit of judicial power and
authority 10 such cases. Sec l25 de-
;lares that nothing shall be construed
'r taken to be a contempt of Court by
an attorney, bnt what shall be said,
lone or committed directly in the pres
9nce, or hearing of the Court during
The sitting Of the same; and which |
shall abuse, uituperate or insult any
Judge of the court or any other person
o or belonging to the court, or resist
'he authority or interrupt the proceed
ngs thereof"
The case excited great deal of in
crest and the court house was pretty
we'll filled during the time consumed by
The arguments The members of the
oar are almost unanimously in sympa.
by with the five members before the
court and it's decision will be awaited
with general anxiety.