Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-04-25
ependence, may become want to use

ontemptuous, angry or insulting ex-
,ressiOns at every adverse ruling un-
a it become the courts clear duty
o check the habit by the severe les
on of a punishment for contempt
The single insulting expression for
Mich the court punlsnes may there
ore seem to these knowing nothing of
the prior conduct of the attorney. ana
looking only at the single remark,
natter 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
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
in the publicity of all judicial pro-
ceeL 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 a contention arose between
tttiAocl dS W NACtlCl " lIHCSo ndu
not already answered a certain aues-
ton. and the court after hearing the
reDOrter's notes read, decided that
she had answered it. whereupon one
of the attorneys sprang to his feet.
and, turning to the court, SAT-, in
loud 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, 102.
In Sears V. Starblrd. Is Cal. 81. 7
Am St 1A3, 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 fulness of his
love for a cause, the paTLias 10 it or
their counsel, or from an overZealous
desire 10 adiudicate 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 in
such condition as to enutle them to
no relief whatever"
/ In reference to this language it was
/ said in the opinion:
"lere is q ---~-nct intimation that
the Judge of lie court below did NOT
act from proper motives. but from a
love of the parties or their counsel
We see nothing in The record which!
suggests that such was the case. On
the contrary. e action complained OF
seems to us TO have been entirely
proper: See Sill V Reese. II Cal. $40
! The brief therefore contains a grounu
less c.arge against the purity of mo-
tive of the Judge OF the court below
J This we regard as a grave breach OF
professional propriety. Every person
on his admission to the bar takes ar
oath to faithfully discharge the du
ties Of an attorney and councelcr.'
Surely sucn a course as was taken ir
this case is not in compliance W.
that duty. In Friedlander V. Sumner
G. & S. NJ. Co, 81 cal. III. The cour
said:
IF unfortunately counsel in any
case shall ever SO far forget himself
as willfully to employ Language mani
testify disrespectful to the judge of tn
superior court-a thing not to be an
to treat such conduct as contempt o
this court. and to proceed according
ly; and the briefs of the case wers
ordered to be stricken from the flies.
In U. S. " Late Corporation oi
Church of Jesus Chris. Of Later Ia.
Sairts, language used in the petition
filed in effect accusing the court o
an attempt to shield it's receiver ant
L inv loot nv
of charges of gross misconduct in OF
flee and containing the statement tina
I'VE must decline to assume the
functions of grand jury. or attemp
to perform the duty of the court il
investigating the conduct Of its Off
GERS. was held to be contemptuous
211 P. 5I9.
In re Terry. So Fed. 419 an extrem
case, for charging the court with ha1
inc peen brbed. resisting remova
from the court room by the marsha
acting under an order from the bench
and using abusive language, one o
the defendants was sent to jail 10
thirty days and the other for 81
months Judge cry. who had no
made any accusation against IN
court sought release and TO be purs
ed of the contempt by a sworn petit
ion in which he alleged that in tn
? transaction he did not have the sigh
est idea of showing any disrespect t
: the court. 1t was held that this cOul
: not avail or relieve him and it wa
said:
The law imputes an intent to a.
complish the natural result OF one
e acts, and. when those acts are OF
? criminal nature, it will not accep
+ against such implication the denial {
/ the transgressor. No one would b
e safe if denial or a wrongful or Grim
: | nal intent would suffice TO realese II
t violator from the punishment due
his offenses."
l. In an application for a writ of h;
y beas corpus growing out of that cas-
u Justice Harlan, speaking for the S
s preme court of the United States salt
8 1--WE have seen that il is a settle
c | doctrine in the Jurisprudence both