Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-04-07

ressiOns at every adverse ruling I'M
Il it become the courts clear duty
check the habit by the severe les
on of punishment for CONTEMPT
The single insulting expression for
inch the court punisneS may there
ore seem to those knowing nothing of
he prior conduct of the attorney. ana
| looking only at the single remark, a
latter which might well 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 court to punish for contempt is
vast power, and one which. in the
hands of a corrupt or unworthy Judge
may be used tyrannically and unjust
ly, yet protection to individuals lies
/ IN the publicity of all judicial pro-
! ceeG ngs, and the appeal which may
! be made 10 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 witness had
not already answered a certain ques-
) ton, and the court after hearing the
! reporters notes read decided that
| she had answered it, whereupon one
/ CT the attorneys sprang to his feet,
/ and. turning to the court sa.d, in 4
/ loud tone and insulting manner:
She has not answered the question"
held that the attorney was guilty OF
contempt regardless Of the quesncn
whether the decision of e court was
right or wrong" Russell v. Circuit
: Judge Ct Iowa. 10e.
! In Sears V. Starblrd. 70 Cal. 81.
Am. St rs. a brief rejecting upon
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 II OF
their counsel. or from an overzealous
desire to adjudicate 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
plaintiffs, whic--, perhaps, the care
lessneSs of their counsel had left in
such q 'cOnGition as TO entitle them t.
no relief whatever
In reference to this language it was
said in the opinion
''I-ere is a ---.nct lntimatiCn that
the Judge of --e court below did nol
act from proper motives. but from 8
love of the parties or their counsel
We see nothing il The record which
suggests that such was the case. o,
the contrary. e action complained o
seems to us to have been entirely
proper: See Sill V Reese, AZ Cal. $40
The brief. therefore contains grounu
less Cargo against the purity of mo
tive Of the Judge Oh the court below
This We regard as grave breach G.
professional propriety. Every person
on his admission to the bar takes al
cath to faithfully discharge the du
ties of an attorney AMI cnHncelcr
Surely sucu a course as was taken il
this case is not in compliance W
that duty. In Friedlander V. Sumne
G.. & s. NJ Co., 81 al. III. The cQur
said:
"If unfortunately counsel in any
/ case shall ever SO far forget h:nsni
as willfully to employ language man'
testify disrespectful to the Judge Of tn
superior court-a thing not to be an
ticipated-we shall deem it our dut
to treat such conduct as contempt Q
f this court. and to proceed according
ly; and the briefs of the case wer
ordered to be stricken from the fle-s.
In U. 5. V. Late Corporation o
Church of Jesus Chti<. Of Later Ia
, Saints, language used in the petitio
filed in effect accusing the court o
| an attempt to shield its receiver an
! his attorneys from an investigation
of charges OF gross misconduct in OF
fee and containing the statement tina
. I'VE must decline to assume tn
J functions of grand jury. or attemp
to perform the duty of the court i
, investigating the conuuct Of its of
GERS. was held TO be contemptuous
211 P 5ls.
+ In re Terry. SO Fed. 41s an extrem
case, for charging the court with hal
, ing been bribed. resisting rer1cva
5 from the court room by the marsha
-. acting under an order from the bencl
: and using abusive language. one
the defendants was sent to Jail
: thirty days and the other for 81
e months. Judge cry, who had nc
i made any accusation against tn
court sought release and to be pur'
6 ed of the contempt by sworn petl
r ion in which he alleged that in tn
g transaction he did not have the Sigh
t est idea of showing any disrespect
: the court 1t was held that this cOu
j. not avail or relieve him and it Wa
s said:
i THE law imputes. an intent to
J. complish the natural result OF one
Q acts. and. when those acts are OF
e criminal nature. it will not accep
= against such implication the derial
J. the transgressor No one would
@ safe if a denial or a wrongful or GRIN
. | nal intent would suffice to realese II
4 violator from the punishment due
f. his offenses."
J, In an application for a writ of HI
" beas corpus growing out of that cas-
u Justice Harlan. speaking for the S
s preme court of the United States sail
r eve have seen that it is settle
c doctrine in the jurisprudence both
q England and of this country. new
| .,uocod 20 ho IN conflict with the Ii