The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1906-12-18

der the rule the respondent Was II
.tI-h a person. as an "ifl1eIs
court could reach for CONT HipA -
cent for acts committed IN thS i1i'h
diatc presence Of the court. OF het4
thereto as Ia interfere with TN CT
m~inistration of justice
Iuagc PurneIl remarked lh@t WI
offaus. had been Coufnttf'H. -
i'm "A room Of the building ia "hleh =
court was sitting ana tnat 2S
struction this was "in tho presence -
the court"
Mr. Pou replied that. while this Was
tyIa the ofIeHsc did not come &iiA#4
fho letter Of the rlle as being a SIS
turbance Of the court. or z F-iIs@- ~
obey It's N4its. process, etc
M. Pou went on 10 say lh4- mas
behavior had the special significance
Of disturbance o. improper c"NI1tt -
in. presence of the court. aIaI '"at'
not apply TO an act Of the claid'l@'
Of that with which klgsbee was c4ldIE-
I'd. He argued that the rule was th@t
an funroDcr use Of process could ~
punished as contempt only - tha+
CONT the administration Of which
was interfered with by such conduct:
consequently that, as the attempt mao
been to interfere with the proceedings
of the state and not the Fedefal
Court although BY means Of Federal
process. jurisdiction to punish Tor
contempt wa in the state court alone.
and not in the Federal court. OnIF
one court could have jurisdiction, n
declared. over one act TO puhlsn 10
contempt.
Upon a question from the bench.
Mr.. Pou declared that the case was
different with an officer Of the couft.
who could be punished Tor any fhi9h'-
mcanor or misconduct. An attorney
is an officer whom the court hoidS III
the hollow Of its hand.
.Contcmnt." SAYS Col. skinner.
District Attorney Skinner, in reply
TO Nj. POu. stated that the rule was
for unIawfuIIy using and abusing the
process of the court, and for inter
fcr,ug with the orderly progress OF q
coordinate court. The purIo. WaN
not to protect the state court. but til'
process of the Federal court from use
for an unlawful purpose. If the re-
spondent has done that, he is guilty
Of contempt.
After pointing out. as summarized
above, what the Government was pre-
pared TO show as to the facts, ne re
piled to the position that thefe hdt'
been no interference with the pro-
ceedings of the Fedora! court ana
therefore no contempt. Abuse Of pro
cess AWAY tended, he declared to m
terfere with the orderly progress O.
the court. The indiscriminate SUB
~pOenacing of witnesses imlnater-al to
Il case might Wen CAUSE III No'C -
be continued Whcn otherwise it would
have been tried; hat the 2rdVamen OF
the oficnSe of abuse of process was the
use of the process of the court IN
aid Of an unlawful purpose, and u1lS
he declared t. be contempt. The Ia
reference with the State court a. Dur
nam was not what it vas desired -
hold Riggsbee to account for. but Such
interference with the State court was
cited merely as indicating the uniaW-
full purpose ia pursuance OF when the
abuse of the process was committed.
He quoted from an opinion in which
it was declared that IF there is no
precedent. it is time that q precedent
were made" and stated that the present
case called for the application of that
principle. If there was no case anala-
gOuS to this one the court should show
that it could not thus be trilled With.
None of the afidaVits, he concluded,
would in his opinion a the effect
of preiudiCing RiggsbeC's defense i'll
the State court but he was willing
for the matter to go over until jan
uary.
In agreeing to the postponment of
the hearing. Judge Purnell stated that
at the time the proceeding had been
first initiated he had said that it con
stituted Il contempt OF the State court
His court, he said, was always careful
not to do anything that smached Of
interference with q state court. He
now thought that abuse Of process Tor
an unlawful or fraudulent purpose was
a contempt.