Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-04-29

til IL UcCOmS Tie COuTL Clear duty
to check the habit by the severe les
son of a punishment TO- 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
matter which might we'll 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 a corrupt or unworthy Judge
may be used tyrannically and unjust
ly, yet protection to individuals lies
in the publicity of all judicial pro-
/ ceeu .ngs. and the appeal which may
be 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
/ not already answered a certain ques-
| ton, and the court after hearing the
CeDorter's notes read, decided that
! she had answered it, whereupon 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 --e court was
right or wrong" Russell V. Circuit
Ju1pa 67 Iowa 100
In Sears v. Starblrd. IS Cal. 81. 7
Am. St 1l3, 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. a fullness Of his
love for a cause, the parrles 10 It or
their counsel or from an Oyerzealous
desire TO adjudicate all matters. points
arguments and things could not, with
any degree of propriety under the law
patch and dGGtor Hp the cause Of the
plain ifs. While, perhaps, the care,
lessness of their counsel had left in
such a condition as to entitle them &c
no relief whatever"
In reference to this language it was
said in the opinion:
''1.are is a >--->-nct intimation that
: act from proper motives, but from {
iCve of the parties or their counsel
We see nothing in The record which
suggests that such was the case. OF
{ the contrary. e action complained o
seems to us TO have been entirely
proper: See Sill V. Reese. II Cal $40
The brief, therefore contains a grounu
: less c4arge against the purity of mo
This we regard as a grave breach O
: professional propriety. Every person
1 on his admission to the bar takes al
: cath to faithfully discharge the du
ties of an attorney AMI cOuncelcr
2 Surely sucn a course as was taken il
t this case is not in compliance W.
f that duty In Friedlander V. Sumne
d G. & S. NJ Co, 81 al. III. The cour
s. said:
: If unfortunately counsel in any
# case shall ever SO far forget himsei
S as willfully to employ language mani
i testify disrespectful to the Judge of tn
:. superior court-a thing not to be an
f ticipated-we shall deem it our dut
} to treat such conduct as a contempt @
D this court, and to proceed according
": and the briefs of the case wer
In y. S V. Late Corporation o
t Church of Jesus Chtis- Of Later Ia
e Sairls, language used in the petitio
l. filed in effect accusing the court 0
d an attempt to shield its receiver an
it his attorneys from an investigation
n of charges OF gross misconduct in OF
t. fee and containing the statement tha
u I'VE must decline to assume tn
il functions of a grand jury, or attemr
= to perform the duty Of the court i
e Investigating the conduct Of its off
L. GERS. was held to be contemptuous
211 P. $40.
st In re Terry, So Fed. 4l9 an eXtrem
r case, for charging bhe court with ha'
e ing been bribed. resisting remCya
IS from the court room by the marsha
d acting under an order from the bencl
is and using abusive language, one {
l. the defendants was sent to jail fC
r thirty days and the other for 81
)e months Judge cry. who had Nc
n made any accusation against til
e court sought release and to be pur:
is ed of the contempt by a sworn pet
,r ion in which he alleged that in tn
le transaction he did not have the Sigh
1t est idea Of showing any disTespect
n the court. 1t was held that this con
e not avail or relieve him and it wa
is said:
Ii THE law imputes an intent to a
s. complish the natural result of one
re acts. and. when those acts are OF
lie criminal nature, it will not accep
II against such implication the denial
h the transgressor. No one would /
lie safe if q denial or a wrongful or GRIN
f. nal intent would suffice to realise Il
Of violator from the punishment due
if his offenses."
n IL an application for a writ Of h
ey beas corpus growing out Of that cas-
III Justice Harlan, speaking for the S
is Dreme court Of the United States sal
is eve have seen that it is a settle
SC doctrine in the Jurisprudence both
ne England and of this country, new
or supposed to be in conflict with the Ii
arty of the citizens, that for dire
a cOrtempt committed in the face