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

| tSSoiONS dt every duS SESo ruling
| Il it become the courts clear duty
check the habit By tie severe les.
IN Of punishment for contempt
The single insulting expression for
hlch tie court D1nisras nay there
| ere seem to these knowing nothing of
| he prior conduct of the attorney. ana
looking only at the single remark, a
| after which light vel he unnotic-
| ed; and yet if I'll the conduct of the
1ttorney was SHOWN, the duty of in
| e"ference and punis ment might be
| clear
We remark finally, that while from
| he very nature Of things the power
| Of 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
", yet protection to individuals lies
= the publicity of all judicial pro-
ceel ngs, and the eppeaI which may
10 -ade- to the legislature for nm
proceedings against any nudge who
proves himself unworthy CT the power
intrusted to him.
Where contention arose between
counsel as to whether witness he'd
| not already answered a certain cues
ton, and the court after hearing the
reporters notes read, decided that
She had answered 1t. whereupon one
OF the attorneys sprang to his feet,
and turning to the court. sad. in a
lCud tone and insulting manne~:
She has not answered the question"
held that the attornev was guilty Of
contempt regardless of the Question
, Ioa5Stnp of
right or wrong" Russell v Circuit
Judge. G. Iowa. 100.
In Sears V. Starblrd = Cal 81, 7
Am. St. 1k3. brief refnctins rn"n
the trial judge was stricken from the
record in the Supreme Court. because
it contained the following:
"The court. out O. {. fullness CT his
love for cause. TIE pafuias 10 it or
ter counsel or from an Overzea GUS
desire to adiudic7te al matters points
arguu epts and things could not. with
any degree Of propriety under the law,
patch and doctor up the cause Of the
plain ifs, whiC-, perhaps, the care
'nseness Of thC'r counsel haQ left in
such condition as to entitle them TO
NO relief whatever"
IN reference to this language it wss
said in the opinion:
ere is : --.nct inti-atiOr that
the nudge of e court De- w did not
act from proper motives, Tut from a
lie OF the parties or their counsel
We see nothing in rla record which:
suggests that such YVES the case. On
the contrary. Q action complained OF
seems to us 10 have been enurc'v
proper: See ST. Y. Reese, At Cal. $40
The brief. therefore contains grOunu
. less c arge against the purity Of mo-
tive of the Judge c. the court below
This We regard as Sraye breach OF
professional Hropriety. Every person
on his admission to the bar takes ar
cath to faithfully discharge the du
ties of an attorney and cuunCelcr
Surely sucD a course rs was taken ii
this case is not in compliance "
that duty. In Fried.alder V. sumner
G.. & s. NJ. Co, 81 cal. III. ALE cour
: said:
= eff urfortura tely counsel in any
case shall ever SO far forget L:nsoi
II as willfully to employ language mani
testify disrespectful to the Judge Of tn
u superior court-a thing not to be an
ticipated-we shall deem it our dut,
to treat such conduct as contempt o
this court, and to proceed according
). ly; and the briefs of the case wer'
: order ed to be stricken from the fi:es
In U. $. v. Late Corporation OF
Church of Jesus Ch;ist Of Later Ia,
. Saints language used in the petition
: fled in effect accusing the court o
an attempt to shield it's receiver an
t his attorneys from an investigation
! of charges of gross misconduct in OF
fee and containing the statement tina
!. eve must decline to assume thu
4 functions of a grand jury. or attemp
: to perform the duty of the court Il
e investigating the conduct Of its on
l.. GERS, was held to be contemptuous
gil P. 5i9. j.
& In re Terry, So Fed 40 an extrem
r case, for charging the court with ha'
q ing oeen brbeG resist;as re~icTa
q from the court room by the marshs
ii acting under an order from the benc!
= and using ABUSIVE language. one q
|. the defendants was sent to Jail t
r thirty days and the other for 81
e months. Judge Jerry. who had nc
l. made any accusation against tn
, court sought release and to be purt
Is &c CT the contempt by a sworn petit
r ion in which he alleged that in To
e transaction he did not have the sligh
It est idea of showing any disrespect
l. the court. 1t was held that this coul
e. not avail or relieve him and it wa
is said:
j. "The law imputes an intent to q
s. complish the natural result Of one
le acts. and, when those acts are OF
e criminal nature. it ]ill not accep
" against such implication the denial I
h. the transgressor No one would b
.e safe if denial or wrongful or Grim
u nal intent would suffice to realese Il
If violator from the punishment due
IT, his offenses."
n In an application for writ OF ri
~ bees corpus growing out OF that cas-
I'll Justice Harlan, speaking for the S
is creme court of the United States sail
is eve have seen that it is settle
SC Doctrine in the Jurisprudence both
,e England and of this country, new
80 x~vstH 1N