Evening star., 1898-02-25
CARSON RELEASED
Judge Cole Defines the Power Of Dis
trict Justices.
The QUESTION OF CONTEMPT
Authority on Such Proceedings Con-
fined to Their Courts.
TENT OF THE -OPIN ION

Il ~ L " 1 II r. ~ + i n ~ N
Perry Carson has been restored to lib
erty and that. too, without paying the
fine imposed by Justice Of the Peace Sam
uel r. Church or serving the sentence in
Jail provided in case of default of pay
ment. 1t will be remembered that Carson
was adjudged guilty several weeks ago of
contempt by Justice Church for Interfering
with a &C rstable who attempted TO seize,
on an execution issued by the Justice, a
horse and cart belonging to Hiram Walker.
fne Of IS or five days in jail was i'm
posed. Perry declined to pay the fine and
was escorted to jail Saturday afternoon,
February 8. The following Monday morn
ing he fled a petition for writ of habeas
corpus and pending a hearing and deter
mination of the question whether or not
he was properly confined Carson was re-
leased by Judge Cole OH personal recog-
nizance.
In delivering his opinion today Judge
Cole held that justices of the peace in the
District of Columbia are without author
ity TO punish for contempt committed out
side the presence of the justice: that the
record of the proceedings in the case at
issue do not show that Carson was ad-
judged guilty of contempt, and that the
commitment on which he was confined In
Jail was faulty. The court took occasion to
remark that interference with a constable
who is attempting to execute an order of
a justice of the peace constitutes misde-
meanor, and the offending party Is liable
to indictment.
Counsel for Justice Church were not in
position today TO say whether the justice
would carry the matter to the Court of
Appeals.
The understanding is that Carson contem-
plates instituting suit at law to recover
damages for false arrest. He was plainly
pleased with the ruling of Judge Cole end
departed from the court room with a broad
smile visible on his counte1.ancc. Perry
was congratulated on all sides. as were his
counsel. Messrs. Tracy L. JeffOrds and
Peril w. Frisby.
In the opinion Of members of the bar, the
case was one of unusual Importance as the
question of the authority of justices of the
peace to punish for contempt in the Dis
trict has always been In doubt. The pro-
ceedings have been followed carefully, and
many prominent attorneys were in court to
hear the opinion delivered 1t was, In full,
follows:
The Opinion.
In delivering his opinion Judge Cole said:
In the matter of the petition of Perry
H. Carson for a writ of habeas corpus and
discharge from Imprisonment thereon,
have to say that the petition and return
involve the question of the power of JUS
tice of the peace in this District to punish
at Large relates to the powers Of the
courts OF tine United States to punish for
contempt, and that, as is we'll known, con-
fires the power of those courts 20 punish
nient for contempt for any act committed
in the presence OF the court, or so near
thereto as to impede the due administra-
tion of justice. and to disobedieuce Of, or
resistance to, any proper order. process,
decree or mandate OF the court.
1T was not claimed by counsel who rep
resented the government. that that section
OF the statute would apply TO a justice Of
the peace in the District of Columbia, and
clearly ii would not under the decision of
the Court of Appeals In the case OF the
United States vs. Mills. Ths Court of Ap-
Peals in that case held that the words
courts of the United States as used in the
general statutes or general acts of Con-
sress referred to courts of the United
States of general jurisdiction and Lot to
special tribunals 1t was determined In
that case that those words did not include
the Police Court of this District, although
that is court of the United States, Great
I'd by an act Of Congress. And also in an
earlier case it was determined that JUS
tice OF the peace court Is 3 court Of the
United States In that limited sense-that is
II is a court that is created by an act OF
Congress. SO W. are left to determine the
powers OF justices OF the peace in the Dis
trict Of Columbia. so far as the power to
punish for contempt Is concerned to the
statutes. If there be any upon that SUBJ
ject. specially in force in the District Of
Columbia.
Counsel were unable to refer to any
Maryland act upon the subject and the
court knows of none that refers to that
question one way or the other. either con-
ferrin1, or limiting the power to punish for
contempt. SO far as the court is informed
the only statute that we have upon the sub
tect in the District of Columbia is section
1UU5 Of the Revised Statutes of the United
States relating to the District of Columbia
and that. In very brief language. simply
says mat justice Of the peace in the Dis
trict of Columbia has power to compel the
attendance of witnesses by attachment
and TO punish them for contempt by q fine
not exceeding SO or imprisonment not ex-
ceeeding ten days for refusing to obey
summons To appear as q witness. 1t is con-
fined to that: 1t Is silent upon any other
sort OF process except that Of a summons
1t Is silent as to the power of the justice OF
the peace to punish for contempt committed
IN his presence. and therefore compelled to
resort to the powers of the Justice OF the
peace under the common law to punish for
contempt.
The English rule upon that subject is
and was from the earlies- ti1le that q Justice
OF the peace had Jurisdiction to punish for
contempt where the contempt was COM
nitted in his presence. or so near the place
as to substantially interfere with the due
administration of justice. But under the
English common law Justice Of the peace
had no power to punish for contempt OF his
process. or any contempt of any kind or
chara acter that was not actually committed
In his presence And In this country. so
lar as tne --ourts have spoken, the anne
rule prevails-that a Justice of the peace
mas jurisdiction to punish for contempt
where the contempt snail have been COM
mitted in his presence But he has no
other Jurisdiction to punish for contempt
unless such jurisdiction is expressly con-
ferred by statute.
Contempt In Court.
There may be some states which have
statutes comforting a broader jurisdiction
there are none of the states, so far as /
have observed, that have statutes taking
away the common law power or Jurisdiction
to punish for contempt committed in the
presence OF the Justice OF the peace There