Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-04-15
dependence, may become want to use
confeemmptdohs,, aiigfyr Of INSULTING ek.


I confemd1p{do}isc angry Of insulting ,es.
| pressshs'at every adverse ruling un-
l. III it become the courts clear duly
o CHEEK the habit By n & severe les
tisen 'Of'a punishment farGcefrt empt:
fsThe: single insulting. expression for
/ { Tli IA ,lnffr court puplSpes may there
fore seem to those knoWihg nothing OF
| the prior conduct Of 4he' attorney ann
I booking only at the siBgfes Eemark a
NATTER which might well be unnotrc-
| ed; and yet if all the conduct of the
|. attorney was KnC'vE,' the duty of in:
4 reference and punis sment might be
| clear .1-9
ave. remark finally. that while from
J the very. nature of things the power
! of a court to punish for contempt is
! vast power, and one which, in tie
iIhands2 of corrupt or unworthy juG ge'
may be used tyrannically and UNJUST
! ~, vet protection to individuals lies
! in the publicity of al judicial pro
+ ceer nes, and the appeal which NAV
! '3a3 made to the legislature fer nrss
I, proceedings against any, judge who
! proves himself unworthy Of the power
inuusted to him.
Whero a contention arose between
! counsel as to whether g witness had
! Mt already answered a certain cues
I iyon. end the court after hearing tho
: r. horter's notes read, decided that
I e1aa, had -answerqd it, whereupon ono
T. q, the. attorneys spr2-g to his feet.
sud turning 10 the rCrrr-. sal, in =
L I'D tone and irsl1lring manner:
She has nor answered the question"
hald that the attorney was guilty. Of
contempt regardless Of the question
vecthar the decision Of 2 co1T+ w
right. or wrong Russell V Circuit
judge. 81 Iowa. 1922 .a--.
In Sears Y. Stavblrd, r Cal. OF !
AM. St. Is brief rejecting unCn
the trial judge was stricken from the
r9c0rd IN the Snpreme Court, because
it contained the following:
!. The court, out o. a fitness Of his
love for cause, the paryies 10 #. or
their counsel. or from an over2ea lous
desire TO adjuaicate al matters. pain. :
prountentS and things could not wifi
= ?arF degree Of pronriety unGg. the IL W
patch and doctor VI. 81 cause Of tbs
plaintiffs. whic--, >pci.naDs the cave
lessness of their counsel hac left =
such q ccncit.cn astro 'entitle them t.
no Tn.,af whatever" s.. -.--,.,
d II reference to this language it wa,
said in the opinion:
-. 49, ot ooa,,r. ' -, A. 10.
oo+ WOW, nronor ,notiros Nv. 80, ,
~ iura Of the parties or their counsel
We see nothing III IL, record wLic'
Suggests that such was The case. Or
".sie- s@shaar#' ACTION coli' -F5 .
seems 10 Us 10 Aale pel SI,'s =, =,
2se 81. ': 49,, = O.. .,
E u, .ei: 'heIel''e c,'li'alhs d Jun
SrsT ''s lai ~ 'itS va ',,s'
i've o. fhn Juegs line coIFt h@l""
o.! II =. ave ard, as 7tje ~ 7aSn =
{ pro- - = .e't, 20
on MS aunliss.en 10 lh9 va, rs "a, az
~ 49, 20 ~, " 4Sz.4'1
'Hfies or an afn'if3a.E AZ. c'''hCe!@i
surrey Su':ilez e2'l = n2 AZ :
- lhls rGa>e IS nc III "a,
lA3( GU. =, ~, ~ - ,,,.
. ,. NJ. Co. d = IL t.rrits'E7 'o'--'
> saisf@i ~ .-r<,-s 49,.
U. ~ t'l ~! -. CO.. -
=, cas- Shat! ever go ut ''ffee' u Az
az Wififr,-E TO employ .9Asat9e l.4
faSTlE dIsfespect'ul 20 ihe,aelaS Oh III
superior. e3urt-a lhiES EGt 70 pe ~
Vi tticipattssG-Nwe shaH deehl u ra' Cyl
-, to treat such conoucs as d eeIs4s'h, ~ :
TINS courf-afss 10 -escceeo dccoi uti.E
": aHal the. prials, o. me case STf
> osFaelef to be strlcl-ea rom me ms.
n Y. >. v Lac co','ofa.ioh %
Shurc1 or Jesus ~, 1 80 s,t'ls, "a
-SalTts.' Language used N lac pellt'o
-rsffe@ in erect accusing Ihe. cCur-, i9
an attempt TO shlelo us retel ',' an
his attorneys from an I'm eselsat'o,
OF charges OF gross m1scoitaqel III O
fice- and CONTAINING the staleu}elll tl,d
Il sifAe.. nqst aecllHls 10 assume ~
functions OF grand jury. VI 'Flilp
to perform the GUY u tue cur !,
30 invest! eating the eona'ee - - VII
u, fers. 'iWasifEeid 70 pc con.eht p'''ouS
r21l +. 5l3.
In re Terry, 80 req Az an eN' 'eAi
case, Tor charsi1fs 'ae c'.liit "l'H 10
3! ing ahlens ,hflnea, reSls, ~