The Hawaiian gazette., 1902-06-06

sfmiulsifai.nn ai iutiir0 Whiitem
state 81 ind 49, lil lil htemrts
are fsnefaily divided W lufists Into NE
classes az direct ana constructive. ~.
rect hoinr 'hnse committed NJ the pres.
ence N the court and constructive 30.
ine those nttf which the court would
have a. consitus by some process of
reasoning a. b. equivalent o. direct
contempt In r. hush. HaW. 2l2
sec also church on fInbans Corpus.
Sec 30s. Bradley v. State. 90 =. r. 4.
ea2 an ga. 1857. Cooper y. People. %
Pac. dCOio) 1876, State v Kaiser, 20
or &c.
Assuming that the cartoon and words
complained ~ are Of the nature charg-
ed in the AFFIDAVIT. !. e.. insulting. con-
temptuous. contumelious. disrespectful
and tending 10 obstruct and prevent
the administration Of justice. and that.
az Contended on behalf of the present
respondent. they were of and concerning
the case then pending and undetermin-
ed and not. as contended on behalf Of
the petitioner. Of and concerning the
case first tried and then CONCLUDED.
and that the Circuit Court so found.
and that such finding cannot be re-
viewed on habeas corpus. stu, IL the
Objectionable matter was published
and circulated or caused to be pub
lished and circulated by Smith. or even,
perhaps, by the proprietors Of The Ad-
vertiser, only in the city generally and
not In the court room or in adjoining
portions Of the court house, these acts
would at most constitute a constructive
contempt only. If. on the other hand,
/ Smith or, let us say, the proprietors.
published and circulated such matter,
or caused II to be published and cir
culated, within the court room or in the
adjoining portions of the court house.
the contempt would be direct. Although
there may be. perhaps, a few authori-
ties to the contrary, this is supported
by the great weight of authority. In
Cooper V. People, supra, Immediately
after the language above quoted, the
court said: THE acts here complained
of belong to the latter class (construc-
tive) II either. They consist of the pub
LEGATION in n newspaper, of general cir
culation in the place where the court
was being held, of such articles in ref
erence to case pending as were cal
culated to interfere with the due ad
ministratlon of justice, as 1t is said"
I'VE have I'm this case, not a case of di-
rect contempt, but a case of indirect
or constructive contempt alleged to
have been committed by the publica-
/ ton OF these several articles in a daily
newspaper. which are alleged
were intended to and did prejudice the
people against the court and grand
jury, embarrass the administration of
justice and reflect upon the court and
its proceedings. "-Fishback " State
lSl ina. 3oi, 3l2 "A newspaper corpo-
ration which deliberately seeks to in
huence Judicial action by the publica-
/ 'ion OF articles threatening the Judges
! with pubic odium and reprobaton in
case they decide a pending cause i'm a
particular way, is guilty of construct
I've contempt. State V. Bee Publishing
Co.. 80 l.. r. A. (Neb) 1875.
Ackermann vs.. Congdon, Haw.. II
(Jahuary, 1850. was a case of a publi-
cation in newspaper of an article
containing expressions which were
deemed by the court to be "calculat ted
10 prejudice the tribunal which was to
Try defendants case and render il un-
favorable to him" The defendants
case referred to was pending. The pub
lcation was held to be a contempt. but
that 1t was regarded as q constructive
contempt IL plain from the Language
is the first instance of constructive
contempt of this character brought to
our notice, and as the case is not a
serious one, We impose no fine" %.
| 2S) we
In Smith VS.. Aholo. 7 Haw.. III
CAPRI, lSSD, the publication in a news
| paper, was of an abstract of a bill in
equity, and while the suit was pending.
The court said: I'VE had occasion, at
the January term, 1887, of this court.
! IN the case Of the Hawaiian Gazette.
ante, page 81. To say that such publica
| ions as appear to have a prejudicial
ERECT upon the rights of the parties
IN cases pending in the courts, were
punishable as constructive contempts
OF court The publication in
question comes within the principle
laid down in the Gazette case. and is
iuliy sustained by authority" See
Also on this subject, State VS.. Circuit
Court. y N. w. (Wis), 1893, 1876.
The case of Telegram Newspaper Co.
VIZ. commonwealth, 172 Mass, 294, cited
Tor the respondent does not hold to the
contrary. 1t was immaterial in that
case whether the contempt was direct
! or constructive. for the court was not
UNITED by statute in the matter, but
mad power to punish either or both
The court merely held that the publi-
cation was contempt, and while II
san, page 29S, IF the publication
amounts to a contempt of court, be-
cause it interferes with the due admin
lstration of justice in cause before
the court, the contempt is analogous to
a contempt committed in the presence
OF the court" IL also said, THE Son-
tempt, II there was one was not, strict
~ speaking. committed in the presence
or the court. but il related to a trial
/ then before the court"
3 The mere fact that the petitioner. at
the time that he published or caused
to be published and circulated. gem
orally, the newspaper containing the
matter in question knew. il he did, or
must have known. that some subscrib-
er or subscribers. to whom the paper
would be delivered in due course.
might bring copies of the paper to the
court room and there circulate OF pub
ilsh them, would not of itself on any
principle that l know of, render the
petitioner criminally liable for such
puphcation or circulation in the court
room. tThere is, it is true. authority
TO the contrary To convict him upon