Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-04-22

to check the habit by the severe les
son of punishment for contempt
The single insulting expression for
which the court punisnes may there
fore seem to those knowing nothing of
the prior conduct of the attorney. ana
looking only at the single remark, a
matter which might well be unnotic-
ed; and yet if all the conduct of the
attorney was known, the duty of in
reference and punis ment might be
clear
We remark finally, that while from
the very nature of things the power
of 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
~, yet protection to individuals lies
in the publicity Of all judicial pro-
ceet. ngs, and the appeal which may
be made to the legislature for pro
proceedings against any Judge who
proves himself unworthy of the power
intrusted to him"
Where contention arose between
counsel as to whether witness had
not already answered a certain QueS-
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, sad, 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 court was
right or wrong" Russell Y. Circuit
Judge. 81 Iowa. 102.
Ii Sears V. Starblrd, Is Cal, 81,
Am. st. rs, a brief rejecting upon
the trial Judge was stricken from the
record in the Supreme Court, because
it contained the following:
The court out o. a fUllness of his
love for a cause. the parties 10 il Of
their counsel. or from an oyerZealous
desire to 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
plaintiffs. whic--. perhaps, the care
lessness Of their counsel had left il
such a conditiCn as to entitle them t
no relief whatever"
In reference to this language it wa
said in the opinion:
the iu1 . of lie court below did no
act from. proper motives. but from
love of the parties or their counsel
We see nothing in iha record whic
suggests that such was the case. o.
[ the contrary e action complained c
seems to us to have been enrrel.
: proper: See Sill V. Reese. AZ Cal. 34'
The brief, therefore contains groun,
no of r
, tive of the nudge OF the court below
This We regard as grave breach c
: professional propriety. Every perso
on his admission to the bar takes
: oath to faithfully discharge the dl
I ties of an attorney ana councelcr
e Surely sucu a course as was taken i
I this case is not in compliance W
Il that duty. In Friedlander V. Sumne
d G. & S. NJ. Co., 81 al. III. The cou
$ said:
: eff unfortunately counsel in an
II case shall ever so far forget himSe
5 as willfully to employ language man
d testify disrespectful to the judge of tt
;. superior court-a thing not to be al
f ticipated-we shall deem it our du'
, to treat such conduct as contempt
o this court, and to proceed accordin
e ly; and the briefs of the case WEI
3, order ed to be stricken from the flies
In T. s. V. Late Corporation {
1t Church of Jesus Chris. Of Later Ia
e Sairts. language used in the petite
l. filed in effect accusing the court
q an attempt to shield it's receiver ar
IT his attorneys from an investigate
n of charges of gross misconduct in @
: flee and containing the statement tn
I'VE must decline to assume til
\ functions of grand jury, or attem
/ perform the duty of the court
10 ,stigating the conduct of it's of
INV "was held to be contemptuOu
Gers Gel. ~ SIG.
III Terry. SO Fed. 419 an extren
IN re charging the court with ha
case lor bribed. resisting remov;
ing oeen 'rt room by the marsh
! from me w n order from the benc
ac.ins uluel i've language. one
anu ISIS vas sent to Jail fl
me uelenuan.n va the other for s.
ln,, ... ""' I,dga on Y. who had nj
lioi.n. onr acc,rsarfo. against tn
| court sought release an pui
ed of the contempt by a ~. ~,
ion in which he alleged nat IN ~
TRANSACTION ne uiu uOt z =
est idea of showing any disFe>. peci
the court. 1t was held that this con'
not avail or relieve him and il wa
said:
'"The law imputes an intent to &C
complish the natural result OF one
acts, and. when those acts are OF
criminal nature, it will not accept
against such implication the denial o
the transgressor No one would o.
: safe if denial or wrongful or criml
! nal intent would suffice to realese tn
Z violator from the punishment due il
his soffenses:
: In an application for a writ of ha
Y beas corpus growing out of that case
! Justice Harlan, speaking for the S,
S preme court of the United States said
5 eve have seen that it is settled
0 doctrine in the Jurisprudence both G
e England and of this country, neve
r supposed to be in conflict with the lit
%h~A 20 1ivsnr