Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1896-03-29
OPINION
Handed Down In the
Kearby Case
mas ALREADY BECOME FAMOUS
AND OF MUCH INTEREST
TO LAWYERS.
THE CONTEMPT CASE
FINALLY SETTLED ny COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEALS.
Jerome Kearby, the Well Known
PopuIisf Lawyer, Wins His
Point in the Context
THE CONTEMPT CASE
FINALLY SETTLED ny COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEALS.

The absobng topic Of conversation
and discussion among the legal fsater-
nifty Of Dallas yesterday YVES tho opin-
ion handed down by the court OF crim-
inai appeals Ia thu Jerome Kcarhy hh-
beas corpus contempt case. This IS one
Of the most important opinions nom a
legal standpoint that has ever been
rendered by this court, and II ~ also
of ubsorb!ng interest TO the public
at large from tho fact that the rolntor
is the leading light OF Texas Pupulsm
and one OF the most generally known
citizens OF the state. After recitius
the history NJ the case and the Texas
statutes relating 10 1t, the decision
says:
It would have been very easy mat
ter In this case " the rrlator was in
contempt Of court for the Judge u have
70 formally ndju Heated; and IN the
meantime to have authorized the sheriff
10 detain the rclatur Uatil the prouer
entry was made and the writ OF COM
mltneut issued which was the anthoI1-
~ for the sheriff 70 lmprisUn him. So
far an the record discloses 10 this case,
the sheriff never had moro tHan mere
verbal order of tho court ~ imprlaun
the rciator n the court can do this
without any statement OF cause, WITH
out any limit us to time the district
Judge W vested with more power than
one man under our system Of free gov
ernmcnJ
Cpnccde. hgwer that tho order 81 the
court could be afterwards entered. and
relator could b imprisoned under &
Nithout any writ ~ commitment. let
cs examine the nature OF the order In
question.
n VIII be borne In mind mat the re-
iato' IN this case hal been sent
20 j1ll on account ~ an JItercatinn nc
curing between hlmsalf aud Hgwkins
during The trial N the Dawson case
On The morning 81 tho 29th Of February.
No order was ever made aud entered
"a shat case and no writ ever issued.
Relatar Fought relief by application
70 this court by writ OF hnhcag corpus.
which was granted He was enlarged
on his bond and the habeas corpus trial
Bst for Monday. MeraA =. In this state
81 Gaze. the relator te-cnters tho court
room 10 participate IN tho trial % the
case in which he was ~ counsel for
the defendant Tfis he had q perfect
right % do, and the attempt Of the
Judge to exclude him from the case
unless he purged himself 1f an alleged
attempt Tho trial Of which contempt
was then pnndiag before this courO
NEH without authority OF law as was
wAii calculated to arouse the relator tt
ibs strongest feelings OF resentment OF
accpunt Of the unwarrnnted action OF
the court In the first place, the righ
OF Judge to purge a party for con
tempt is not one OF the modes Of pun
ishment given by law: and in the Sec
ond place. the court had lost iurisdlc
ton OF this matter. The rolator, ps 1
occnrs TO us, very properly proteste,
against this unseemly action Of tn
court-insistnR that he was not guilt,
% nny contempt and that he would no
purge himself for what he had not done
Ia
written orders afterwards entered tina
''the court thereupon ordered the sheriff
20 take charge Of tho said Kearby
And the court then, as II appears from
the said order, proceeded to discus
the matter. referring Ia the rclatof
stated that he was referring TO him L
all kindness The relator. as II an
pears, responded In botstcrous man
ner that he did not want the court I
treat him kindly. that he could talk I
him out OF court. that he could tren
him as mean ms he knew how, an
nothing he could say would cause hir
10 aknin look upon him with regarf
and thercupon the relntor was urdere
to jail Looking to tine order itself.
occurs TO US that the improper nctio
OF the court In this matter was u,
moving cause FOR what aubs-uucntl
occpurred. and that the rclntor coul
hardly he considered In contempt I
ihStNNHiR 'li llENl| 10 ulp2lT III III
case, as he did. without being con
PEELED to humillate himself before III
court and jury by complying with IN
uffwnrranted demand OF the court, ths
he should In some manner purge hin
self. The court had no power TO SUI
pend relator from the privilege Of nrnr
ticing his profession This can only /
done for certain causes enumerated
the statute. ana In accordance with n
form therein provided and IN sue
cascs he IL guaranteed the right ,
trial by jury See Rev. Civ Sat. Ar
2G2 to 2eS. inclusive
We would not be understood as hoit
ing that some OF the subseuuent col
duct of the rclntor. as testified 10 /
the witness in this case, WI
not Of character 10 have nuthol
lied the court TO have visited. upo
him punishment for contempt. bt
there Is no prctense in this case thi
such was the basis OF the order mad
by the Judge. Nor Is II our purpose
IN anywise depreciatc or disparagn Ii
power OF the courts to preserve at a
times the authority aud dignity I
their courts. The statutes on this sui
5eot give them. In our opinion, too littl
power IN this regard. but this pow,
must In every case be exercised az
cording to the forms OF law. and wher
ever those foripg. which are tho saf,
guards OF the citizen under our free Ii
ptltutions, arc ovcrstepped or disrs
Z Karded. II becomes n dangerous proct
= dent. paving tho way to usurpalip
n tl,s. .f,,4.r