Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-04-05

y CSolohS at CFSly ClSc luIluS I'LL
"A it become the courts clear duty
check the habit by the severe les
on of punishment for contempt.
rhe 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, a
natter which might well be unnotic-
ed; and yet if all the conduct of the
ittcrney was known, the duty of in
difference and puns 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
\ 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
n the publicity of all judicial pro-
ceeL- ngs. and the appeal. which may
he 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 witness had
not already answered a certain ques-
ton. and the court after hearing the
reporter'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
lCud tone and insulting manner:
She has not answered the question
held that the attorney was guilty of
contempt regardless of the question
wnether the decision Of .-e court was
right or wrong" Russell V. Circuit
Judge. 81 Iowa, 1872.
In Sears V. Starb1rd * Cal. 81. 7
Am. ST. 1l3. brief rejecting unon
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 parIias 10 it or
their counsel, or from an overzealous
desire 10 adjudiCote all matters. points
a-gun ents and things could not. with
any degree of Dropriety under the law
patch and doctor I'D the cause of the
plain. ifs, whic-, perhaps. the care
1eSsness of their counsel had left in
sucn a cOnuition as to entitle them tc
no relief whatever"
In reference to this language it was
said in the opinion:
.. ere is --~-nct intimatiOn that
the Judge of e court pelCw did nos
act from proper motives. but from 2
love of the parties or tl.nir counsel
We see nothing in he record ThIcf
suggests that such was the case. Or
the contrary. e action complained o.
seems to us &c have been enIrelv
proper See Sill V. Reese. II Cal. $40
The brief therefore contains grOun -.
less Cargo against the purity Of mo-
tive of the Judge @. the court below
This we regard as q grave breach Ct
professional prOpriety. Every person
/ on his admission to the bar takes al
! cath to faithfully discharge the du
! ties of an attorney ana councelcr
Surely suc44 a course as was taken II
! this case is not in compliance W
that duty. In Friedlander V. Sumne
G.. 4 S. Nj. Co, 81. y al. III. The cour
said:
] If unfortunately counsel in any
case shall ever So far forget h:mscl
as willfully to employ Language mani
testify disrespectful to the judge Of tn
superior court-a thing not to be an
| ticipated-we shall deem it our dut,
to treat such conduct as a contempt o
this court, and to proceed according
": and the briefs of the case wer
ordered to be stricken from the flies.
In U. 5. V. Late Corporation o.
Church of Jesus Chi,, Of Later Ia
Saints. language used in the petition
filed in effect accusing the court o
an attempt to shield it's receiver an
his attorneys from an investigation
- ty,o ~
fee and containing the statement tha
1--WE must decline to assume tn
functions of a grand jury. or attemp
to perform the duty of the court i
) investigating the conduct Of its of
GERS, was held to be cOntemptuous
211 P. 5i9.
In re Terry. 36 Fed 41S an extrem
case, for charging the court with ha'
) ing been bri5ea, resisting remcEa
from the court room by the marsha
acting under an order from the benc]
and using abusive language, one c
the defendants was sent to Jail fc
thirty days and the other for 81
, months Judge -erry. who had nc
: made any accusation against tn
court sought release and to be pur'
( ed of the contempt by sworn pati
; ion in which he alleged that in tn
: transaction he did not have the Sigh
est idea of showing any disrespect
the court 1t was held that this cou
: not avail or relieve him and it wa
S said:
: "The law imputes an intent to a
complish the natural result OF one
2 acts. and. when those acts are OF
; / criminal nature, il. will not accep
against such implication the denial
: the transgressor No one would
e safe if denial or wrongful or GRIN
} nal intent would suffice to realise Il
[ violator from the punishment due
: his offenses."
: In an application for wrir of b
v heas corpus growing out of that cas-
/ Justice Harlan. speaking for the S
S creme court of the United States sal
S eve have seen that it is settle
g Doctrine in the, jurisprudence both
e England and of this country, new
| ~ ~ in conflict with the Ii