The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-06-04

| liberty by the order or Judgment Oh
any court finding him guilty OF con-
tempt is entitled to writ OF naoeas
corpus, and that upon return tieIeol
the court Will inquire into the Ndilulty
of such order or Judgment, ana me
| jurisdiction of the court to Hldhe lue
same. If it be shown upon the Iace
of the return or upon the record De-
fore The courtu that the conducl OF
| the petitioner is not within Tue SL5l-
ut-s defining contempt or thdc lne
! Judge is without jurisdiction Oh III"
subject matter or the person the pc
titioner should be discharged from
custody. The General Assembly, OF
this State has clearly defined Wildt
| acts shall constitute conteltlFI al"
| further declared 1.-THE seVeral dcls'
neglects and omissions of duty mai
| Peasants, misfeasances and nonieas-
| ances. above specified and described,
shall be the only acts, negleclS anu
omissions of duty, malfeasanceS' inns
! feaSanceS and nonfeaSanceS WHICH
| shall be the subject of contempt VI
/ court. And if there be any pdltS VI
| the common law now in force III inns
! State which recognized other acts'
neglectS, omissions of duty, mdlledS-
! anceS, miSfeaSanceS and nonIedSdiiNeo
! besides those specified and descrlpeu
| above, the same are hereby repeater
| and annulled." There is no room Tor
construction or controversy In respect
! to the law upon this subject. rms
court has expressly held that i is
within the power of the Legislature
to define for contempt. EX Parte
| Schenck 63 N. G. 353. We are clear
| ly of the opinion that the acts WIN
which the petitioners are charged, 90
not come within the definition ana 90
not constitute contempt. 1t is an ele-
| mentary principle of law without any
| exception, that no man shall pc al
| judged guilty of any crime or mlsde-
meanor or be deprived of his llte I'D
| erty or property until he shall nave
| an opportunity to be heard in his de-
Tense. 1T is a principle never to be
| lost sight of that no person should De
| deprived of his liberty or rights WIN
| out notice and an opportunity TO de-
| fend them. This right is guaranteed
| by the Constitution. Hence II Is that
no court will give judgment against
any person unless such person nave
an opportunity of showing cause
! against it. judgment entered up
otherwise would be a mere nullity.
Hamilton VS.. Adams, Mass 161.
! We are therefore of the opinion:
| First, That upon the return and the
record before us it does not appear
| that the petitioners are guilty of any
| contempt of the court.
Second. That the judgment render
| ed in their absence and without no.
tice and without an opportunity TO be
heard, is invalid, and they are entitled
to be discharged from custody.
1t is so ordered.
| No costs of affidavits will be taxed
the other costs will be taxed against
the county of Robson.
At the Supreme Court.
The hearing of the habeas corpus
| was resumed at 10 % clock yesterday
morning, and the Supreme Court
room was filed with an interested
audience. Many ladies were present
| There was but little in the way of
preliminary and as soon as the JUS
| tees were seated Col. T. M. Argo be-
! gan his argument sustaining Judge
PEBBLES position, while through the
| open door leading into the library the
| Judge himself was seen moving around
The argument was pleasant but for
| chile on both sides the nearest APP
proach to a clash being when Mr.. John
| ID. Shaw replied to remarks made by
| Col. Argo, who had designated the
| course of the Robson lawyers as Ill
advised A pleasant smile and hap
| the stream of debate ripping again.
At points in the argument of coun-
| sci there were some questions and
answers that enlivened the argument,
| the main question on which informa-
ton was sought by Judge Connor be-
| ing whether it was a fact that the pc
| titioners, Kerr Carroll and Souther-
land, were not in the actual presence
of the court was in the record.
Mr. Shaw replied that the petition
ers were not in the actual presence
| of the court, and that the record does
not state whether they were there OF
not.
Colonel Argo said the point was inn
material that the respondents were
constructively in court If not other
| wise.
Judge Common desired to know eX-
actly how the record was, and then
| Mr.. Busbee replied that at that time
| the three men were in sampson
| county.
Judge Conner said that the counsel
| would be allowed to make that fact a
matter of record, and to do this, if ne
| cessary, he would reach "a conclusion
by having before him competent evi-
| dence, men who were actually in the
| presence of the court and could say
| whether the petitioners were there
He said that he desired to ascertain
as a matter of fact whether the peu-
| toners were there. Mr. Charles Z
| Harris, who had been with Col. Argo
stated they were not
| Mr.. Shaw also declared that the Pc
titioners were not in the presence OF
| Judge PEBBLES and that they coulo
prove that they were not even In the
county at the time, and that they mao
! received absolutely no notice OF the
contempt proceedings, and that they
knew nothing about it until they were
| in the custody Of the sheriff
| Justice Douglass asked II tney nae
/ any notice of the contempt proceed
| ings, and Mr.. Shaw replied they hao
not.
1t was here announced that Judge
PEBBLES admitted that the petltlonerS
were not in the presence, ana that ne
| had no objection to the TACT peiils
made a part of the record.
Justice Connor said that IL nau peer
admitted that at the time OF the con
tempt proceedings the petitioners were
not in court, and had received no no.
tice of the proceedings.
Col. Argos Argument.
The opening argument was mace
for Judge PEBBLES against the Srantln&
of the writ by Col T. nj. Afso' VINO