Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-04-03
THE MORNING APPEAL

1 =
| -essions at every adverse ruling ""
| 4 it become the courts clear du.v
! check the hC1it bv tne severe les
N of punishment for conter.nt
The single insulting expression for
| uch the court pGnisnes m there
| ere seem to these knowing nothing Of
| he prior conduct Of the attorney. ana
| looking only at the single remark a
! otter which might we'll he unnctic-
/ ed; and yet if all the conduct of the
!. tCrney was hHuWn, the duty of in
! ference and punis ment might be
| clear
We remark finally, that while from
| he very nature of things the power
| If a court to punish for contempt is
vast power, and one which, in the
hands of a corrupt or unworthy Judge
nay be used tyrannicaHv and unirrr-
ly, yet protection to individuals 10
! the publicity of all judicial pre-
ceeL -ngs, and the appeal which nav
g made to the legislature for Dro-
proceedings against any judge who
proves himself unworthy of the power
| intrusted to him"
Where a contention arose between
counsel as to whether witness he'd
not already answered a certain Gues
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,
end, turning to the court, sad, in =
Ind tone and insulting manner:
She has not answered the question"
held that the attorney was guilty of
contempt regardless Of the question
/ 'Enother tho decision of e court We
right Or wrong" Russell v Circuit
Judge. 81 Iowa, 1902.
In Sears V. Starblrd, IS Cal. 81. Z
Am. St. 1k3. brief rejecting un"n
the trial judge was stricken from the
record in the Supreme Court, because
il contained the following:
The court, out o. a fullness of his
love for cause, the parries 10 it or
their counsel, or from an overzealous
desire to adiudicate all matters, points
arguments and things could not, with
any degree Of propriety under the law
patch and doctor up the cause of the
pain ifs, WhiC-, perhaps. the care
leseness of their counsel had left in
such a condition as to entitle them tc
no relief Whatever
IN reference to this language it was
said in the opinion:
-. ere is a net lr+imatlCn that
the Judge of --4e court below did MOI
act from proper motives, hut rom 2
love Of the parties or their counsel
We see nothing IL The record which
suggests that such was the case. Or
the contrary, e action complained o
seems to us 10 have been entirely
proper: See ST. V. Reese. II Cal. $40
The brief. therefore contains a grOun,.
less c arge against the purity of mo
tive Of the Judge Q. the court below
This we regard as a 5raTe breach O
professional proDriety. Every pers"'
on his admission to the bar takes al
cath to faithfully discharge the du
ties of an attorney AMI cnGncelCr
Surely sue. a course as was taken il
this case is not in compliance "
that dutr. In FriedlalGer V. oumre
G. {. S M Co. 81 : al. III. The ecu
= said:
If unfortunate ccrreel in an
cas-. shall ever SO far forget h:nSei
as wiilfully to employ language man
festlv disrespectful to the judge Of tn
SUPERIOR court-a thing not to be al
. ticipated-we shall deem it CIR dur
to treat such conduct as contempt c
this court. and to proceed accordlns
": and the briefs of the case Wer
, order ed to be stricken from the flies.
In U S V. Late Corporation @
( Church of Jesus ChtiSr Of Later Ia
Saints language used in the petitio
filed in effect accusing the court @
| An attempt to shield its receiver an
al
: of charges Of gross misconduct in O.
fee and conrairlng the statement tina
we must decline to assume tn
functions cf a grand jury, or attemT
to Derforri the duty of the court /
investigating the conduct Of its of
GERS, was held to be cOntemDtuous
211 P. . }.
In re ferry, SO Fed 419 an extrem
case. fo" charging the court Win h9'
ING &C., rr.hea rnSis1.,r r~.2~'-0
from Il" court room by the marsh:
:. acting ,uder al order from the bencI
and usiHg aDusive language, ono T
the defendants was sent to Jail l
: thirty days and the ether for 81
, months. Judge erry. who had NJ
- made any accusation against n
court sought release and to he Dur
: Gu Ct the contemnt by a sworn PCT
: ION in which ne alleged that in II
. transaction he did not have the sNGA
est idea Of showing any disrespect
the court It was held that this con
J. not avail or relieve him and it WE
: said.
The law imnntes an intent to a
j. cOmplish the natural result o. chs
Q acts. and, when those acts are Of
2 | criminal nature. it viii not accen
r against such i,npl;cation the Geni7!
!, the transgressor. No one would
G ! safe if a denial or a wrongful or GRIN
: al intent would suffice to realese t
+ vi0latnr from the punishment due
f. his Offenses.'
J. In an application fer a wrir Of :
" beas corpus growing out Of that cas-
J. Justice Harlan. speaking for the :
c prer,e court Of the uaiIed Stato= g
is I'VE have seen that it is a settle
. 7cctr1no in the Jurisprudence b0th
% England and Of this country. new
"a ~ IN, cnr fl ct with tho Y