Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-05-04
Not in Criminal Contempt.

MOI III criminal contempt.
THE cases all agree that the act of the
witness In refusing to answer a question
propounded to him. If 1t be his right to
decline to answer. will not become a Grim
inal contempt by being adjudged so. Peo-
pie agt. Kelley. oath N Y rs
The question then is, whether the fact
sought to be elected from the appellant by
the question pronounced to him on cross
examination. and which he refused to an
s s,s.ia was OF such privileged character as
the same. - "e
Ihe appellant Is an attorney at law and
a member of the bar of the Supreme Court
OF the District of Columbia. In taxing the
memoranda for the preparation oS the will
., party. whose name he refused to dis
close ne was certainly acting in his char
acter OF attorney. and the relation of client
anu attorney existed. If his statement be
true. was he bound to disclose the name
OF his client under the circumstances re-
lated Dy him? The law upon the question
Is well settled and admits of no question
of doubt
Professional communications made nv a
client to an attorney. or commune tons
passing between Client and an attorney are
upon principles of public policy and the
necessity of preserving confidence in all
matters or business where the assistance
or agency OF an attorney are required held
to be privileged from disclosure, and this
privilege Is that of the client rather than
that OF the attorney This privilege en-
braced all communications made by a Client
TO his attorney for and in force of the busi-
ness for which the attorney may be en-
ployed. The latter cannot be permitted to
disclose such commun' cations. whether
they be In the form of title deeds letters,
documents or other papers delivered or
statements made to him. or of letters, en-
tries or statements. written or made by him
in that capacity. Harng "et. Clobary. first
-tls nh aerf Ianfh han "a md
B. and B.. 4: Greenough agt. Gaskell. first
M. VI. and X. 101. TIE protection is not
qualified by any reference to proceed ngs
PENDING. or in contempla ton. nor is it ma
terial that the client be in any manner be-
fore the court where the disclosure Is
sought TO be had. If 1t touch matters that
come within the ordinary scopa of the pro-
fesssonal employment legal officers receive
the communication in their professional
capacity If from tie client or his ac-
count and for his benefit in the transac-
ton of his business: and ii amounts to the
same thing If they commit papers in the
half matters which thev know only through
their professional relatsoas to the Client:
they are not only justified in Withholding
such matters, but bound to withhold them
and will not be cnmpelled to disclose the
informa ton produce the paper in any
court of law or equity. either as party or as
witness" First Greenl- ev. u2th ed.h. sac.
22s-254 First Taylor ev. 18th edD. PIP. ST.
SIG, and the cases cited by the authors.
Might Exclude Truth.
'It is true the strict enforcement of this
rule may. in some cases. operate to the ex-
clusion of truth. but that does not Justify
the breaking down of the great principle
of protection, founded in wisdom and pub
lie policy and necessary to be observed in
the administration of an enlightened sys-
tenn of Jurisprudence. Like all other gem
eral principles, it may. in some instances.
fail to accomplish the end for which 1t
was established. The privilege of the wit
ness, or his client. however, does not pre-
clude the adverse party from resorting to
any and all legitimate methods of proof to
reach the facts desired to have disclosed.
In this case it was competent to show by
Independent evidence that the witness
claiming and insisting upon his privilege
had in fact no such client as he pretended
to have, and thus by such proof to fmpeach
the credibility of witness; but not by
compelling the witness against his claim
of privilege to make the disclosure, for
making him disclose the name of his client
would certainly have permitted q breach
of professional confidence and violated the
privilege OF his client. supposing him to
have One, as he has stated in his testi-
nony.
1T has been held in some cases that an
attorney may be required to disclose the
name of the person by whom he was en-
ployed. in order to let in a confession or
admission of the real party in interest. the
character In which his client employed
him, whether that of executor or trustee.
or on his own private account; but this q