The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-11-19

is necessary to prevent interruption, dis turbance or hindrance of its proceedings This common law and seatutory power of the court, well known to petitioners at the time they laid their pavement. or caused the same to be laid, was warning to them that 1t should be laid in a manner not to hinder or prevent the due admins traitor of justice at the place long there tofore ordained by law for 1t to be admin istered. proper regard for public inter ests should have So influenced them.
 we are not without precedents for the action of the court in quelling these dis turbances. The case of the City of New Orleans vs. Bell, 14 Louisiana Ann. 214, was one of rule taken against a sheriff. Bell, to show cause why he should not be enjoined from placing barricade across the street ordered by the judge of the First District Court to be so placed. to prevent the disturbance of the pro- ceedings of the court while in session by the passage of horses and vehicles. The Supreme Court on appeal from the order denying the injunction, held that the judges of the courts in Now Orleans are vested with all power to regulate the po- lice of their courts and to prevent the disturbance of the administration of jus tice referred to.
 Again, in Belvin vs. the City of Rich mond, I. L. R. A.>807 it was held that a judge of the Hastings Court of the city of Richmond had authority to order ropes sti etched across a street during the hours his court was sitting. to prevent travel in front of the court house where the noise of passing vehicles was sufficient to ob- struct the proper administration of jus tice therein. These decisions do not ap- pear to have been based on statutes. and there Is nothing in the statutes of this State which makes them inapplicable here.
 Ut is to be admitted that any unau- thorlzed obstruction of public highway, such as impedes its lawful use as such, is a public nuisance at common law, which the public have the right to abate. But that rule does not apply in this case. If during court hours the unobstructed travel on Twenty-first Street between Third and Fourth Avenues, does in fact obstruct, interrupt or hinder the pro- ceedings in said court, in the manner shown, then the power of the court to abate such obstruction, hindrance or in- terruption to the administration of jus tict would seem both on principle and authority clearly to follow. and the order of the judge cannot be said to have been unauthorized.
 'sThis order as ama1ded does not PppeaY to have gone any further than was abso- 
 lutely essential to abate the disturbance and protect the court from Interruption. It cannot be characterized as arbitrary or excessive.
 we need not consider the question whether the court was under obligation to move into some other room in the court house occupied by other officers. It appears that this privilege was not open to it. Besides, the room 1t did occupy was the one in the building long thereto fore dedicated to its uses for holding court
 The question has been raised by the respoI dent as to whether the remedy here invoked is the proper one In such case We may forego it's decision, however, since having no wrongs to avenge the consideration of the petitioners remedy is unnecessary.
 'The prayer for mandamus is denied and the petition therefore is dismissed.