Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-04-01

al IL become the courts clear duLy |
) check the habit BIZ the severe les
on of a punishment for contempt
The single insulting expression for !
hich the court punisnos may there
ore seem to those knowing nothing of ,
he prior conduct of the attorney, ana
looking only at the single remark. a ,
after which might we'll be unnOtic-
ed; and yet if all the conduct of the |
ttOrney was knoWn, the duty of in |
difference and punis- ment might be !
clear .. u..
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 corrupt Or unworthy Judge |
may be used tyrannicallv and unjust |
". yet protection to individuals lies
:, the publicity of all judicial pro
ceeL -ngs, and the appeal which may
70 made to the legislature for nro-
proceedings against any Judge who
proves himself unworthy of the power
intrusted to him.
Where a contention arose between
counsel as to whether a witness had
not already answered certain cues
ion. and the court after hearing the
reporters notes read, decided that
she had answered it, whereupor ore
Of the attorneys sprang 70 his feet,
md. turning TO the court, sal, in
l~lla tone and insulting manner,
She has not answered the question
held that the attorney was guilty Of
contempt regardless of the question
.-1cthpr the decision Of court W.
right or wrong Russell V. Circuit
.'udvo 81 Iowa 1902.
In Sears Y. Starbrd. Is Cal 81,
Am. ST. i13. a brief rejecting rnon
The trial judge was stricken from the
record in the Supreme Court, because
it contained the following:
THE court. out O. q fnilneSs Of his
love for a cause. tie pattias 10 it or
lheir counsel. or from An oyerzealous
desire to adiulicate all matters. noin-s
2ruunp1ts and things could not, with
any degree Of nropriety undar the law,
0atc1 and doctor IN the cause Of tho
plain. ifs, whic-, perhaps, the cara
. 1essness of their counsel had lett in
such 2 cOnui-ion as TO enti1e them to
. no relief whatever
IN reference to this language it was
said in the opinion:
-. erA Is a not lnfiTaflCn tEAL
the irdge Of e court below did no
ac+ from proper motives, hut from a
love Of the parties or their counsel!
We see nothing IN the record Hhlch
suggests that such was the case. Or
the contrary. & action complained OF
seems TO us 70 have been enuTe'E
DrG,1er. See Sill V Reese, At Cal. $40
The brief. therefore contains a grOunu
less c arge against the purity OF mo-
tive Of the Judge O. the court below
This We regard as q grave breach CT
: professional propriety. Every person
on his admission to the bar takes ar
cath to faithfully discharge the du
ties of an attorney and councelcr
: Surely suci. a course as was taken II
/ this case is not il compliance "
[ that duty. In Friedlander V. sumne
G. & S. NJ. Co., 81 al. III. The cour
said:
If unfortunately counsel in any
ease shall ever so far forget hinsci
as willfuliy to employ Language man!
festlv disrespectful to the Judge OF tn
superior court-a thing not to be an
; ticipated-we shall deem it cur dur
to treat such conduct as contempt o
this court. and to proceed according
w. and the briefs of the case Wer
order ed to be stricken from the flies.
In Z. ). v Late Corporation OF
Church. of Jesus Chtist Of Later Ia
, Saints. language used in the petition
= filed in effect accusing the court o
l an attempt to shield its receiver an
I his attorneys from an investigation
of charges of gross misconduct in OF
fee and containing the statement tina
/ We must decline to assume tn
1 funct .ons of a grand jury, or atTemp
: to perform the duty of the court i
o Investigating the conduct Of its off
|. GERS was held to be contemptuOus
211 P SO.
+ IN re- Terry. IS Fed 419 an extrem
r case. for charging the court with ma
q ING ynn- brbec. resisting Ccr17-2
$ from the court room by the marsha
il acting under an order from the benc'
6 and using abusive language. ono c
l. the defendants was sent TO Jail
r thirty days and the other for 81
e months. Judge -erry, who had n
l. made any accusation against IN
> court sought release ard TO be pur
c ed Of the contempt by sworn pat;
r ion in which he alleged that in II
10 transaction he did not have the sign
It est idea of showing any disrespect
l. the court. It was held that this co"
e. not avail or relieve him and it We
is said:
i "The law imputes an intent TO 3
s complish the natural result Of cne
,e acts, and when those acts are CT
e criminal nature. it will not accep
W against such implication the denial
h the transgressor. No one would
,e safe if q denial or wrongful or erin
f, nal intent would suffice to realise 7
# violator from the punishment due
if his offenses."
n In an application for a writ ~ r
OK beas corpus growing out of that cas-
III Justice Harlan, speaking for the :
ie irene court Of the United States SCI
is eve have seen that it is settle
81 doctrine in the Jurisprudence both
he England and of this country, new
or supposed to be in conflict with the L
erty Of the citizens, that for dire