The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-11-19
A COURT CAN CLOSE STREET,
 SAYSALABAMAS SUPREME COURT
Action of Judge Coleman of Birmingham in ObStruct
 ing Twenty first Street Owing to t< Noise is Sustained.

that said street had been paved with
 vitrified brick only a very short time prior to the issuance of respondents order, on June 2Snd, 1902, to wit, about ninety days. and that prior to the time said street was paved with vitrified brick it was not paved af all, but was laid with gravel or chert so that travel thereon, including the passage of heavy vehicles and street cars, was comparatively noiseless. This has been the condition of the street for a great many years prior to June 2Dd, 1902, in fact since the building of the raid court house in the year 1887; that said vitrified brick pavement, while laid in scientific manner, is of such material and necessarily so laid and constructed as to emit an extraordinarily loud and roaring kind of noise during the passage of
 vericles over the same, and even light yihicIes unless they be rubber tired, cause a rattling and roaring noise, which can be as plainly heard in respondents court room as by any person standing on the sidewalk of said street; indeed, 1t can be truthfuliysaid, that the noises made by vehicles and street cars in said street in front of said court room. are greater and more resounding inside of the court room than outside, the acoustic principles of said court room being such as that the noises coming from the street reverDerate in the court room to a much greater ex- tent than in the air
 "The answer proceeds to state in sub stance that the noise created by the pas sage of vehicles and street cars is so great as to create combination of roasing and
 rattling noises, which fill the court room drowning all other sounds therein, which cannot be kept out by shutting the doors and windows as respondent has often tried to do; that these noises are so great
 as to stop the proceedings Of the court | for much of it's time. because what IS De- | ing said by the court, witnesses and at | torneys cannot be heard; that before said | pavement was laid petitioners were warn ed and notified that 1t would cause the
 very disturbance it has caused, Snd inter | fere with the business of the court but | in spite of such warning petitioners pro- l ceeded to lay the same
 sIf this case were decided upon the
 mere equities of the equality "f tights, 1t
 wotild seem that the court house having
 been. ablished long before the paving or | the street the petitioners coming 10 ex- | ercise the power of paving ronIrreo on | them hv their charter, should have done | so in a manner not to so seriously inter | fere with the due administration or pnohc | iustice such as Is shown has been oone' The street, should have been paced In a | manner anu WlIH SUCH "S not have caused the disturbance to the
 court complained of, and which the judge
 sought by his restraining order to prevent.
 Especially is this true. since 1t appears | that by paving with some other material | the disturbance might have heen largely
 avoided.
 Aside from this view. however, 1t may
 be stated as a truism. that every court or record has inherent power. irrespective or | statute to make rules for the regulation
 and transaction of its business. not in
 conflict with the laws and constitution
 of the land H American and English
 Ency. Law, 45O: and that such courts endowed with this power may runish all
 persons for contempt of their rules and orders, for disobedience of their process,
 or for disturbing them in their proceed | inRs.
 "Furthermore, it Is provided by statute in this State that every court has power to preserve and enforce order in its Inn
 mediate presence, and as near thereto as