Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-04-17

al it become the courts clear duty
check the habit by the severe les
on of a punishment for contempt.
The single insulting expression for
which the court punisnes may there
fore seem to those knowing nothing OF
the prior conduct of the attorney. ana
looking only at the single remark, a
natter which might well be unnotic-
ed; and yet if all the conduct of the
attorney was known, the duty of in
reference and punis ment might be
clear
We remark finally, that while from
the very nature of things the power
of court to punish for contempt is
a vast power, and one which, in the
hands of corrupt or unworthy judge
may he used tyrannically and unjust
ly, vet protection to individuals lies
in the publicity of all judicial pro-
ceeL ngs, and the appeal which may
he made to the legislature for pro-
proceedings against any judge who
proves himself unworthy Of the power
intrusted to him
Where a contention arose between
counsel as to whether a witness had
nCt already answered a certain Ques-
jiCn, and the court after hearing the
reporters notes read. decided thai
she had answered it. whereupon one
OF the attorneys sprang TO his feet.
and. turning to the court, SAT-, in q
loud tone and insulting manner:
She has not answered the question
held that the attorney was guilty Of
contempt regardless of the question
whether the decision Of court wP7
right or wrong" Russell v Circuit
Judge, 81 Iowa, 100.
In Sears V. StarbIrd. Is Cal Of
Am. St 123. a brief rejecting nn"n
the trial judge was stricken from the
record in the Supreme Court, because
it contained the following:
The court. out o. fullness of his
love for cause. the parrias 10 il or
their counsel. or from an overzealous
desire to adiudicate all matters. points
argum ents and things could not. with
any degree Of propriety under the law
patch and doctor up the cause Of the
plain, ifs, whic-, perhaps, the care
lnssness of their counsel had left III
sucn condition as TO entitle them tc
no relief whatever.
In reference to this language it wa;
said in the opinion:
9. ere is net intimation that
the nudge of e court below did not
act from proper motives. but from :
lcva of the parties or their counsel
We see nothing III The record wliic'
suggests that such was the case. Or
the contrary. e action complained o
seems TO US 10 have been enurelr
proper: See ST. V Reese. AZ Cal. $40
The brief. therefore contains a grOunu
less G arge against the purity OF mo
tive of the Judge O. the court below
This we regard as a grave breach o.
professional propriety. Every person
on his admission to the bar takes al
cath to faithfully discharge the du
ties of an attorney ana cnGnCelcr
/ Surely sucu a course as was taken il
this case is not in compliance W
that duty. In Friedlander V. 0umne
G. 4 S. NJ. Co. 81 al. III. The cOur
! said:
If unfortunately counsel in any
case shall ever So far forget h.msci
as willfully to employ language mani
testify disrespectful to the judge Of tn
sunerior court-a thing not to be an
/ ticipated-we shall deem il cur dur
to treatosuch conduct as contempt @
this court. and to proceed according
": and the briefs of the case wer
order ed to be stricken from the flies.
In Z. 5. V. Late Corporation O
Church of Jesus Chts- If Later Ia
Saints. language used in the petitio
filed in effect accusing the court O
an attempt to shield it's receiver an
his attorneys from an investigation
Of
fee and containing the statement tha
eve must decline to assume tn
functions of a grand jury or attemr
to perform the duty OF the court l
investigating the cOnduct Of it's off
GERS. was held to be contemptuouS
21l p. 5l3.
In re Terry, SO Fed. 4l9 an extrem
case. for charging the court with ha'
ing been bribeQ, resisting re@cTa
from the court room by the marshi
acting under an order from the bencl
and using abusive language. ono
the defendants was sent to jail
: thirty days and the other for 81
: months. Judge : cry, who had ~
made any accusation against tn
court sought release and to be pur
: ed Of the contempt by a sworn pati
ion in which he alleged that in II
? transaction he did not have the sligh
est idea Of showing any disrespect
: the court. 1t was held that this cou
: not avail or relieve him and it w;
: said:
= "The law imputes an intent to a
= cCmplish the natural result OF nns
e acts. and. when those acts are OF
? criminal nature. it will not accep
= against such implication the denial
l. the transgressor. No one would
Q safe if denial or a wrongful or Grin
; ! nal irtent would suffice to realeSe t
+, violator from the punishment due
f. his cffenses."
Il In an application for writ of, h
v heas corpus growing out of that cas-
Il Justice Harlan, speaking for the S
s preme court of the United. States ca
So Eve have seen that it is a settle
q: doctrine in the Jurisprudence both
e England and of. this country, nev
If cunoscd IN he in conflict with the /