The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-06-06

aas committed and sentenced toF
constructive contempt or for n direc
contempt
As 10 the distinction between thes
tao classes OF cOntempts- "A direc
contempt. or a contempt In facis Gu
riae. Il noisy or tumuituOus cOntuc
IN the presence OF the court. or so nea
thereto as 20 Interrupt its proceedings
or an open defiance OF its powers o.
authority: or dlsrespectfuI behavior o
language 20 the presiding Judge. d
any improper conduct tending 10 de
feat or impair the administration o
Justice. An indirect or constructive
contempt IL one offered elsewhere thar
in the presence OF the court and ~hicf
tends BY its operation 20 degrade OF
make frupotent the authority OF th'
eo,rt or In some manner 90 impede OF
e.obarrass the due administration oi
fustics~-T Am. a. Eng Encyel- Law
sna "a "a .contsmpts are defined q
-. direct. such "a are offered IN the
pr~ssncs OF the court. while sitting tu-
diefafty or constructive. such. though
not in It's presence. as tend 10 oostruc'
and ernbarraas or prevent the due ad-
rnfnistration Of Justice" state v VIII
son. 81 III. fss. The contempt u direct
1rh@n committed befor. and In the pres
sncs OF or 80 near 10 the court as To
snterrupt the proceedings OF the court.
contsmpts are constructive when
they are committed not In the pres
ence OF the court. and when they tend
by their operation 20 Interrupt. OBJ
struct. ernbarrass or prevent the due
OF tustice."-Whittern v.
state. IS Ind ia. 3i2. 2i3. "contempts
are generally divided by Jurists Into the
classes OF direct and constructive: d.
rect being those committed IN the pres
snc@ Of the court. and constructive b.
Ing those acts which the court would
have - cOua:rue by some process OF
reasoning 20 be equivalent 10 a direct
re Bush. Haw. 30.
See also Church on Habeas Corpus.
Sec. 30s: Bradley v. State. 80 L X. a
sss QIi Ga. 1850: Cooper v. People. q
Pac. (colo.) 7s5: State v. Kaiser. 20
or. 81.
Assuming that the cartoon and words
OF are OF the nature charg-
I'd In the affidavit. 4. e.. insulting. con-
contumelious. disrespectfui
and tending 20 obstruct and prevent
the administration OF justice. and that.
a. contended on behalf OF the present
respondent. they were OF and concerning
The case then pending and undetermin-
The petitioner. OF and concerning the
-ase frst tried and then concluded.
md that the Circuit Court 40 found.
md that such finding cannot be re-
Viewed on habeas. corpus. still. IL the
Objectionable matter was published
md circulated or caused TO be pub
lshed and circulated by Smith. or even.
by the proprietors OF The Ad-
sertiser. only in the city generally and
rot In the court room or In adjoining
portions OF the court house. these acts
you'd at most constitute n constructive
ontenpt only. II. on the other hand.
smith or. let Us say. the proprietors. /
published and circulated such matter.
y caused u 90 BE- published and cir
uiated. within the court room or In the .
dJoininE portions % the court house.
he contempt would be direct. Although
here may b.. perhaps. a few author!-
les Co the contrary. this IL supported
y the gFeat weight Of authority. In
'ooper y. People. supra. Immediately
ftcr the language above quoted. the
ourt said The acts here complained
belong 90 the latter class Cconstruc-
Vel 10 either. They consist OF the pub
cation In newspaper. OF general cir
1iation In the place where the court
as being held. OF such articles In ref
renee 20 ease pending as were cal
1nted To interfere with the due ad-
% justice. as Ia - said
We have In this case. not a case Of d.
ct contempt. but a case Of indirect
? constructive contempt. alleged 10
ave been committed by the pubIica-
on % these several articles In a daily
rwspaper. which are alleged i
ere Intended 90 and did prejudice the
ropir against the court and grand
ny. cnbarrass the administration OF
isticc and reflect upon the court and
= proce~diuEs.''-Fis v. State.
y ind. aot. az ~ newspaper corpo-
'tion which deliberately seeks To- in
lrucc judicial action by the publlca-
on % articles threatening the Judges
i'm public odturn and reprobation IN
ts- they decide a pending cause In a
trticuiar way. is guilty % construct
. contempt. '-StRte y. Bee Publishing
o.. 30 l. ~ \. CNebD is5.
Acksrmann w. Cougdon. Haw.. u
January. iss7O. was a case OF a pubii-
iti0n IN a newspaper OF an article
'ntaininS expressions which were
'eHcd By the court 90 b.. calculated
; prejudice the tribunal which was TO !
> DEFENDANTS cas-. and render II un-
NFA&Utt 10 MN The defendants /
iSe referred 10 was pending. The pub
alton was held TO BE- n contempt but
Mt u vas regarded as a constructive. :
ntsmpt IL plain from the Language.
the court: AS the case before us
the first Instance OF constructive.
ntempt OF this character brought TO !
ir notice. and "a the case IA not a
rious one. We impose no fine" 20.
IN Smith ~. Ahoio. : Haw. III 9
iprti. iss5D. the publication in a news !
per. was OF an abstract OF n bill in !
utty. and while the suit was pending. !
~ court said: We had occasion. at @
" January term. 1sS7. OF this court 2
the case OF the Hawaiian Gazette
te. pa Sc 81. TO say that such pubilca-
ms as appear TO have a prejudiciaI '
cct upon the rights Of the parties =
eases pending IN the courts. were |
Unstable az constructive cOutempts !,
court The publication IN .
cStion comes within the principl.. q
y down In the Gazette ease. and Is II
Us sustained BY authority" See .
70. ON this subject. State W. Circuit =
urt. q -. w. (Wis). Is5. 1875.
ne case Of Telegram Newspaper Co. =
Commonwealth. i52 Mass. 2s4. cited o
the respondent. does not hold TO the !,