Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-04-08

| epen0once, may become want to use
ontemptupus, angry or insulting ex-
ressions at every adverse ruling I'M
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
| hich the court puniSnes may there
ore seem to these knowing nothing of
he prior conduct of the attorney, ana
looking only at the single remark. a
latter &''ich might we'll be unnotic-
ed; and yet if all the conduct of the
attorney was known. the duty of in
difference and punis ment might be
, clear
We remark finally, that while from
he very nature of things the power
of a court to punish for contempt is
a vast power, and one which. in the
hands of corrupt or unworthy Judge
may be used tyrannically and unjust
ly, yet protection to individuals lies
in the publicity of all judicial pro-
ceeL ngs, and the appeal which may
be made to the legislature for mo-
proceedings against any Judge who
proves himself unworthy of the power
! intrustnd to him.
Where a contention arose between
counsel as to whether a witness had
net already answered a certain GueS-
ton. and the court after hearing the
reporters notes read, decided that
she had answered it, whereunon one
of the attorneys sprang TO his feet,
and. turning to the court, sad, in
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 va
right or wrong Russell V. Circuit
Judge, 67 Iowa. 102.
In Sears V. Starblrd, Is Cal. 81.
r Am. ST. ll3. a brief rejecting Unon
r the trial judge was stricken from the
record in the Supreme Court because
: it contained the following:
THE court, out o. a fullness OF his
love for a cause, TIE pafTias ~ 1t OF
i their counsel, or from an oVerzealous
: desire to adjudicate all matters, points
i arguments and things could not, witt
l. any degree of propriety under the law
:, patch and doctor up the cause of th'
| plain..f ifs. whic.., perhaps, the care
It ,essness of their counsel hao !e,t Il
L such conuitiCn as 10 entltle them I
e no relief whatever
e In reference to this language it wa
S said in the opinion:
3 9, ere is a net intimation tia
d the Judge of e court below did nc
d. act from proper motives. but from
h love of the parties or their counse
o We see nothing IN 1na record Tilc
re suggests that such was the case. 0
ct the contrary, e action complained {
,e seems to US TO have been enurel
sr proper: See Sl v Reese. II Cal. "a
le The brief. therefore contains a groun
,e less Cargo against the purity Of MT
h, tive OF the Judge O. the court belo1
h. This we regard as grave breach
X professional ,repriety. Every perso
a on his admission to the bar takes a
G. oath to faithfully discharge the d
I'd ties of an attorney and counceicr
ne Surely sucn course as was taken
at this case is not in compliance W.
of that duty. In Friedlander V. sunni
nd G.. & S. NJ Co., 81 al. III. The cou
IS said:
C. IF unfortunately counsel in an
OF case shall ever 80 far forget h:nsc
- as willfully to employ language ma,
nd festly disrespectfu1 to the judge Of t
". superior court-a thing not to be a
Of ticipated-we shall deem it our du
TO to1treat such conduct as contempt
to this court, and to proceed accordir
be ly; and the briefs of the case We
70, ordered to be strlcte1 from the fi;es
In u. S. v. Late Corporation
w Church of Jesus Chtis- ct Later Z;
he Saints, language used in the petite
N fled IN effect accusing the court
nd an attempt to shield. its receiver Al
ri his attorneys from an investigate
On OF, charges Of gross misconduct in {
~ fce and containing the statement til
Gu I'VE must decline to assume II
tit functions of grand jury, or, attem
le- to perform the duty of the court
ne investigating the conauct' OF Its Of
IN GERS, was held to be contenptuor
= 211 P. By. 49, -'i*> H"G"rra:
rst e. In re Terry, Sc Fed. 4ls an extrer
er case, for charging the court with hs
ge ing oeen briben resisting r.-acv
as from the court room by the marsh
o, acting Under an order from the benz
10 and using abusive language. one
N. the defendants was sent to Jail
or thirty days and the other for S
be months. Judge erry. who had II
On made any accusation against I
ge court sought release and to be pu'
is ed of the contempt by sworn pet
lor ion in which he alleged that IN :
The transaction he did not have the slig
hit est idea of showing any disrespect
On the court. 1t was held that this COZ
re- not avail or relieve him and it "
his said:
oli- "The law imputes an intent to
es- complish the natural result OF on
the acts. and. when those acts are Of
he criminal nature, it will not acce
ior against such Implication the denial
It'll the transgressor No one would
the safe IL a; denial or wrongful or cri1
of, nal intent would suffice to realise
of violator from the punishment due
rn- his offenses."
en- In an application for a writ of
ney beas corpus growing out of that ca
fnl Justice Harlan, speaking for the
HIS preme court of the United States sa
is 1--WE haye seen that it is a settl
= 81 Edoctrine in the Jurisprudence both