The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1895-07-01
CoNTEMPT OF oOURT

a decision embracing some peculiar
features was rendered in the district
court of Los Angeles, county California,
last week. An ambitious young reporter
on the Los Angeles Herald had heard of
the brilliant achievements of Nellie BLY,
and conceived the idea of doing some
thing in that line which should send his
name laundering down the corridors of
time.
There Is q state asylum for the insane
at Highlands, a small town not far from
Los Angeles, and his scheme WAS to
feign insanity, have his case passed upon
by the court and get himself sent to the
asylum, find out all he could about its
management, get released, and then
write it up for his paper. Everything
worked as he had mapped it out until it
came to getting out, then it became nee
essary to tell the whole story He got
out but was cited to appear in court and
answer to the charge of contempt He
was found guilty and sentenced to pay a
fine of $500, or serve 100 days in jail
In deciding Judge Clark said:
81 can readily believe what is said by
counsel, and in the affidavit of the re-
spondent that no disrespect was intended
for the person of the judge of this de-
partment, or any of the judges OF this
court; but had it been intended, and that
was the only thing involved, | should
| have taken no notice of it. But 1t is time
| that 1t be understood that contempt of
| court does not consist of want of respect
| for or a contempt for the individual who
may happen to hold judicial office. The
| crime of contempt of court is not, as
many think it is, an offense against the
| person of the judge. 1t is an offense
! against the government. 1t Is public
| offenes in the same sense that perjury or
| murder is public otfense
"And this is so because it is an unlaw-
full interference with the orderly admin
| istration of Justice by the tribunals Gre
ated for that purpose.
mo act can constitute a contempt of
court unless it in some manner and in
some degree does interfere with the or
derby administration of justice by court
| of Justice. Here it is plain that this re-
| spondent, by deceit, caused the machin-
cry of the court to be set in motion, in
| volving some considerable public ex-
pense, and that when brought before the
court he acted in a dsorderly and inso-
lent manner, and attempted, by simulat-
ing insanity, to induce the court to make
an improper and illegal order. Possibly
from the standpoint of reporter, such
conduct may seem right and proper.
1t is possible, even, that in some quar-
ters an attempt to deceive a court OF
justice, and by deceit to procure an
improper and illegal order, an order
involving the expenditure of con-
siderable public money, and result
ing in the sending of a sane man to an
insane asylum, may be looked upon as g
legitimate journalistic enterprise.
hardly think, however, that, upon sober
second thought, any citizen would so re-
gard it. One who embarks upon such an
enterprise, an enterprise that involves q
violation of law, an enterprise which in
wolves the commission of a public of
tense, must abide the consequences.
shall, of course, take into consideration
the fact that the respondent has attempt
ed to purge himself of the contempt OF
court, and therefore make the punish
ment light; but still shall make it severe
enough to emphasize the fact that the
courts must not be trifIed with. The de-
PENDANT will be punished by fine Of
5000, with the usual alternative of 1O(
days in the county jaiL"
If other courts shall follow this prece
dent it may put stop to a great deal O.
expensive and needless litigation. Judge
CIark's opinion would seem to apply t.
all cases wherein suits are instituted
without apparent cause or justification
1t is not unusual for cases to be dismiss
ed on these grounds, but if the cour
should follow it up by imposing a fine OF
the person who thus sets in motion thu
machinery of the law at the expense o
the public for no sufficient reason
would doubtless result in no little saving
of public money.