Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-04-11

.epenGence, may become want to use
ontemptuous, angry or insulting ex.
| ressions at every adverse ruling I'M
al 1t become the courts clear duty
check the habit by the severe les
| on OF punishment for contempt
The single insulting expression for
men the court punisnes may there
ore seem to those knowing nothing of
| the prior conduct of the attorney. ano
J looking only at the single remark a
natter which might we'll be unnotic
ed; and yet if all the conduct of the
attorney was Known, the duty of in |
reference and pupis ment might he |
clear .s.tl
we remark finally, that while from |
he very nature of things the power !
OF a court to punish for contempt is |
2 vast power, and one which, in the !
lands OF corrupt or unworthy Judge |
may be used tyrannically and unjust |
ly, yet protection to individuals lies |
In the publicity of all judicial pro- /
ceeG ngs. and the appeal which NAV
be made to the legislature for nro- !
proceedings against any Judge who |
proves himself unworthy of the power
Entrusted to him"
Whe'e contention arose between |
counsel as to whether witness had |
not already answered certain aues-
ton, and the court after hearing the
reporters potes read, decided that /
Sae mad aRswereS it, wnereupon one
s or ste eys .prang to his feet
1nnd F,'' Ag to the court. sad IN
-. zone and insulting manner:
has not answered the question
,eld that the attorney was guilty OF
contempt regardless of the question
IT whether the decision of --e court wa
J. right or wrong" Russell " Circuit
II Judge. 81 Iowa, 102.
t. In Sears V. Starblrd IS Cal 81. I
ar Am. St. 1k3. a brief rejecting upon
ir the trial Judge was stricken from the
ID record in the Supreme Court, because
Il it contained the following:
,e 'The court. out O. fullness of his
love for cause, the parties to it or
ID their counsel, or from an overzealous
le desire to adiudicate all matters. points
al arguments and things could not, with
RI any degree of propriety under the law,
r. patch and doctor up the cause of the
n plain. ifs, whic--, perhaps, the care
at lessness of their counsel had left in
n such a cOnaitiOn as to. entltle them 70
lie no relief whatever
&c In reference to this language it was
as said in the opinion:
IS g. ere is a --->-nct ihfimation that
ID the Judge of -ae court Dei6~ did not
ID act from proper motives but from a
sh love of the parties or their counsel
TO We see nothing in he record whici
ne suggests that such was the case. On
'ct the contrary e action complained OF
he seems to us 10 have been enurely
er proper: See Sill V. Reese, Al Cal. $40
he The brief therefore contains a grounu
ee less Cargo against the purity of mo,
IN, tive Of the Judge CT the court below
n This we regard as grave breach OF
* professional rropriety. Every person
a on his admission to the bar takes ar
~ oath to faithfully discharge the du
cd j ties of an attorney AMI councelcr
ne Surely SUCH a course as was taken IL
at this case is not in compliance W
of that duty In Friedlander V. sumner
nd G.. & S. NJ Co., 81 al. III. The cour
es- said: -. .
lc- IF, unfortunately counsel in any
OF case shall ever 50 far forget himself
St. as willfully to employ language mani
nd testify disrespectful to the Judge OF thu
tv superior court-a thing not to be an
Of ticipated-we shall deem it our dut,
to to treat such conduct as contempt O
to this court. and to proceed according
he ly; and the briefs, of the case, wer'
o., order ed to be stricken from the h;es
In U. s. " Late Corporation OF
NJ Church of Jesus Christ Of Later Ea.
he Saints. language used in the petition
M filed in. effect, accusing the court o
nd an attempt to shield its RECEIVER an,
II his attorneys from an investigation
on of charges OF gross misconduct in OF
IT. fee and containing the statement tina
leu I'VE must decline to assume thu
It'll functions Of grand jury. or attemp
de- to perform the duty Of the court il
me investigating the conoUct Of its ON
An. GERS. was held to- be contemptaous
{ 21l. P. 5l9. .t...
rst In re Terry, SO Fed 4ls an extrem
ter case, for charging the court with ha'
lge ing oeen bribed, resisting reIrcva
las from the court, room by the marsha
Oh acting under an order from the bench
is and using auusives language. one o
on. the defendants was sent to Jail #
or thirty days and the other for 81
be months. Judge -erry. who had no
on made any accusation against tn
ge court sought release and to be purs
is ed of the. contempt, by q sworn petit
1or ion in which he alleged that in tn
the transaction he did not have the sligh
sht est idea Of showing any, disrespect
on the court 1t was held that this coul
re- not avail or relieve him and it wa
his said: ~ sT-e1e. ~. ..aat =
bill "The law imputes an intent to a.
.es- complish the natural result OF one
the acts. and. when those acts are of
the criminal nature. it : will not aecep
ior against such implication the denial {
it'll the transgressor. No one would b
the safe IL a denial'or a wrongful or Grim
of, nal intent would suffice to realise tt
OF violator from the punishment due
trif his offenses."
en- lin an application for a writ of hi
ney beas corpus growing out OF that cas-
tfnl Justice Harlan. speaking for the S
This nreme court of the United States sa't