Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-04-13

al 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
5hch the court puniSres NAV there
ore seem to those 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
attorney was known. the duty of in
reference and punis ment might be
clear
We remark finally, that while from
The very nature Ct things the power
of a court to punish for contempt is
a 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
in the publicity of all judicial pro-
cee1 ngs. and the appeal which may
be made to the Legislature for pro
proceedings against any judge who
proves himself unworthy Of the power
iutrue+o1 to him"
Where contention arose between
counsel as to whether a 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 20 his feet,
and turning to the court. sad, in
loud tone and insulting manner
She has not answered the question
held thai the attorney was guilty Of
contempt regardless Of the question
whether the decision Of e court wa
right or wrong" Russell V. Circuit
Judge G. Iowa. 102.
In Sears y. StarbIrd, = Cal 81.
Am. S.. l43. a b"ief rejecting unCn
the trial Judge vas stricken from the
record in the Supreme Court, because
it contained the following:
The court out O. ? fullness of MS
love for a Gauss, the DacLies 10 il OF
their counsel or from an Overzealous
desire 70 adjudicate ali matters. points
+ arguments and things could not, witt
any degree of pr0priety under the law
patch and doctor ND the cause Of the
plain ifs, whic-., perhaps, the care
+ lessness of their counsel HAD left II
4 such a CONDITION as TO entiJle them t
no relief Whatever
In reference to this language it va
said in the opinion:
., ere is a net in+iratiOn thai
the Judge Of e cOrrt below did no
act from proper motives but from
love Of the parties or their counsel
We see nothing III Tile record Vhic'
suggests that such was the case. O.
the contrary, action complained o
seems to us 10 have been enurol'
proper: See ST. Y. Reese. II Cal. $40
less G. arge against the purity of NO
tive of the Judge O. the court below
This we regard as a grave breach o
professional prorriety. Every person
on his admission TO the bar takes a
cath to faithfully discharge the du
ties of an attorney AMI cOunCellr
Surely suCn a course as was taken i
this case is not in compliance w
that duty. In Friedlander Y. Sumne
G. 4 S. Nj. Co, 81 \ al. III. The cour
said:
If unfortunately counsel in an,
case shall ever SO far forget h:ns"j
as willfully to employ Language man
testify disrespectful to the judge Of tn
superior cOurt-a thing not TO be ar
ticipated-we shall deem it Cl~ dur
to treat such conduct as a contempt {
this court and to proceed ACCORDING
": and the briefs of the case wer
ordered to be STRICKEN from the fi:es.
In U. s. V. Late Corporation o
Church of Jesus Chtis,r Of Later Ia
! Saints. language used in the petitio
: filed in effect accusing the court c
an ATTEMPT to shield its receiver an
, his attorneys from an investigated
of charges of gross misconduct in o
fee and containing the statement thu
I'VE must decline to assume tn
functions of a grand jury, or attemi
to perform the duty of the court
: investigating the conouct Of its off
. GERS. was held to be contemptuou
211 P 5l9.
+ In re Terry, SO Fed. 419 an eXtren
: case. for charging the court with ha
: ing been brihen. resisting reCccTs
: from the court room by the marsh;
! acting under an order from the benc
: and using abusive language, one
the defendants was sent to jail i
: thirty davs and the other for s.
E months Judge cry. who had NJ
! made any accusation against III
court sought release ard to be pur
g cd Of the contempt by sworn poti
[ | ION IN winch he c1ftScu lirt IL -
q transaction he did not have the sligF
t est idea CT showing any disrespect
: the court II was held that this cou
J. not avail or relieve him and it We
s said:
! 'The law imputes an intent to q
: complish the natural result CT one
@ acts. and when those acts are CT
e criminal nature. it will not accep
= against such implication the denial
i the transereSsor. No one would
@ safe if a denial or wrongful or erin
: raj intent would suffice to realese Il
+ violator from the punishment due
f. his offenses."
! In an application for writ Of h
vi beas corpus growing out of that cas-
Il Justice Harlan, speaking for the
S. preme court OF, the United States co
IS 1--WE have seen that it is settle
90: doctrine in the Jurisprudence both
e ENGLAND and of this country, nev
II supposed to be in conflict with the Ii