Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-04-10

ressions at every adverse ruling I'M
Il 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,
after which might we'll he unnotic-
ed; and yet if all the conduct of the
lttCrney 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
n the publicity of all judicial pro-
ceeL ngs, and the appeal which may
be made to the legislature for pro-
proceedings against any judge who
!. proves himself unworthy of the power
irtrusted to him"
Where a contention arose between
counsel as to whether witness had
ton, and the court after hearing the
reporters notes read. decided that
she had answered it, whereupon one
OF the attorneys sprang to his feet,
and. turning to the court, sal. 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
! Judge, ST Iowa, 1902.
In Sears V Starblrd, IS Cal 81. 7
Am St 1L3. brief rejecting uncn
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 a cause, the pafrias ~ it or
/ their counsel, Or from an overzealous
, desire 70 adjudicate all matters. points
! arguments 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
/ lessness Of their counsel haC left in
/ such a conaition as to entitle them tc
no relief whatever"
/ In reference to this language 1t was
/ said in the opinion:
g. ere is a net intir alton tiat
the Judge Of e court below die not
act from proper motives. but from 8
love of the parties or their counsel
We see nothing i'll lie record Which
suggests that such was the case. Or
the contrary, e action complained o.
seems to us TO have been enIlrelv
proper: See Sill v Reese. ~ Cal. $40
! The brief therefore contains grounu
less Cargo against the purity Of mo-
tive Of the Judge @. the court below
This we regard as a grave breach OF
professional propriety Every person
on his admission to the bar takes ar
oath to faithfully discharge the du
! ties of an attorney and cnuncelcr
Surely sucn course as was taken il
this case is not in compliance "
/ that duty. In Friedlander v. sumner
G. & S. M. Co, 81 ,al. III. The cour
said: - .. f-.s,.I,-f,.
": IF unfortunately counsel in any
case shah ever so far forget h:msci
as 1wiHfullN~to employ Language mani
festly disrespectful to the Judge OF tn
superior court-a thing not to- be, an
ticipated-1-we shall deem it our dut,
to treat such conduct a.. a contempt o
this court, and to proceed according
ly; and the briefs OF the 'ease -weF'
ordered to be STRICKEN, from, the Hes.
TN u S.,4v., Late Corposation d
Church of Jesus Ch;is. ct Later Ia
4 Saints. language used in the petitio'
filed in effect accusing the court o
an attempt to shield its.teessEscs an
HIS atnnFneys from nan stnye9tiGettol
kof bharkes OF, gross misconduct in q
Ace and containing the statement tha
. I'VE must decline to 4ssune tn
functions Or 4 grand Jury. FOR attemp
to perform the duty. Of tha court 4
. investigating the conduct Of its Cd
GERS Ger p "y. rs held ed to ,, BE- ''n'e"''D'd'
E>~ In.re Ferry, So Feds %1sGA23ax trem
case for charging the eoz:rt with .ha'
} ing A1een ybriben.6 resisting, .renr~s
, | from the court room by the marshs
i acting under an order from the; bancl
= and using abusive hiaAg1Iagesssona c
!. 1 the dafendAnts was sent to Jail IF
: thirty days and the other for 81
e months. Judge cry. who had nc
+ made any accusation against tn
| court sought release and to ,ba pun
3 ed of the contempt by sworn p:ti
r ion in which he. alleged that In th
G transaction he did not have the Sigh
est idea Of showing any disrespect
+ the court. 1t, waa held that this cou
, not avail or relieve him and it va
S said:
i THE law imputes an intent to
: complish "thes natural result of one
e acts, and. when those acts are of
e. criminal nature, it. will not accep
r against such Implication the denial
l. the transgressor. No one would
e safe if a denial or wrongful or erin
. nal futent awoud sufIicea to realise II
4 violator from the punishment due
T. his offenses.' y - -
IA In an application for a. writ of h
y heas corpus growing out Of that cas-
II Justice Harlan, speaking for the s
is Dreme court of the United States sa'
is "We have seen that it is a settle
'o't Doctrine in the Jurisprudence both
e England and of this country, new