The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1896-01-07

OOO0AOA O7Og OOO OOSUASA . VI SAS O~~O9
in publishing the article set out in the
rule to show cause and is on that &C
count guilty of contempt. This Sec
ton is as follows: Tine publication of
grossly incorrect reports of the pro-
ceedings in any court, about any trial
or other matter pending before said
court, made with intent to misrepresent
or to bring into contempt the said court;
but no person can be punished as for
contempt in publishing a true, full and
fair report of any trial, argument, de-
cision or proceeding had in court"
The only part of the article com
planned of. that seems to undertake to
give a report of the proceedings of the
court Is as follows: THE reasons that
Judge Ewart gave for the removal of
the cause were founded on the unin-
territorial error, corrected by the con-
text, which The Citizen made in re-
porting the testimony of John Sumner,
AID the afidavits of men from various
parts Of the county, stating that in their
opinion, Sumner could not obtain an
impartial trial in Buncombe." The re-
spondent, in his answer to the rule,
says this statement is not grossly in
correct and that he believes it is q full
and true report of the proceedings in
the Sumner case.
There is nothing inherent in this
statement that shows that it is grossly
incorrect; the respondent says that as
he is informed and believes, it is cor
rect. The answer makes the issue as !
to whether it is correct or not, and
while we do not agree with the counsel
for respondent that he was entitled80
have it tried by a jury Gf he had de-
manded a jury, which he did not) yet
we are of the opinion that he was en-
titled to have this issue tried by the
court, unless the court chose to sub
NIT it to a jury; because if it was a
correct statement of the facts, then, |
under the statute, it was no contempt
to make the publication. It does not
appear that the matter was tried in
any way-the court simply holding
that respondents answer was not re-
sponsive to the rule" and acjudged
him guilty of contempt.
We do not see that that part of the
publication purporting to give an &C
count of the proceedings, of itself is
calculated to produce disrespect and
contempt for the court; but if it had
been found to be grossly incorrect, |
pointed Is it is. by the comments that
followed, we do not say it would not
amount to contempt under the statute. |
But we must hold that under the
statute of 1871 the respondent cannot
be punished for contempt, for the Ian
gUage used in his comments upon the
court, that we think were calculated
and must have been intended to bring |
the court into ridicule ard contempt, |
only as they might point and furnish
evidence Of the intent with which the
misrepresentation as to the trial were
made, if it had been found they were
grossly erroneous.
1t is our duty to declare the law as
VIC LA1A H. 61IU ~ As hOu "lBIAu Jul 1
province to say whether it is wise or
not. There are two sides to ton one
side the protection of the citizen, on
the other the usefulness and efficiency
of the courts. The most of our citi-
g n and many of our newspaper men
recognize the delicate position a Judge
occupies-that his position neither
allows him to defend himself physically
or through the public press against
false and s%landerous charges, and these
do not condsider it manly to make such
charges, and no judge ought to object
to j1st and fair criticism by the press.
But respondent also put his defence on
another ground; he says under oath:
3rd. "Afiant states that said publica
ton was not made with intent to mis-
represent this court, or to bring this
court into contempt ard ridicule."
1t is not for the court to judge
whether this is false or true; the law
made him his own judge-his omn trier
and as to how we'll he did this he will
answered. another bar-we must take
his verdict. Elk parte Biggs, "a N. @,
pa.
There is error in the Judgment.
Error.
A true copy. Thomas s. keenan,,
s. Q. @.
It adjudged further that the costs OF
the appeal, amounting to $11 80. shall
be paid by the county of Buncombe.
~ /
A BEER FIGHT.