Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-05-02

dependence, may become want to use
contemptuous, angry or insulting ex-
pressions at every adverse ruling I'M
til it become the courts clear duty
TO check the habit by the severe les
son of punishment for contempt.
The single insulting expression for
which the court punisnes may there
fore seem to those knowing nothing of
the prior conduct of the attorney, ana
looking only at the single remark, a
matter which might well be unnotic-
ed; and yet if all the conduct of the
attorney was known, the duty of in
reference and puns ment might be
clear
We remark finally, that while from
the very nature of 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
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
counsel as to whether 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 to his feet.
and, turning to the court, sad, in
loud tone and insulting manner:
She has not answered the question"
held that the attorney was gsilty of
contempt regardless Of the question
whether the decision of ,-e court was
right or wrong" Russell V. Circuit
Judge, 67 Iowa. 102.
In Sears V. Starbird. Is Cal 81. 7
Am. St, 123. 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 fullness of his
love for a cause. the parties 70 it or
their counsel or from an overZealous
desire to adjudicate 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 entitle them to
no relief whatever"
In reference to this language it was
said in the opinion:
"I.ere is a net intimation that
the Judge of ,4e 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
] IL
1 proper: See Sill V. Reese. At Cal. $40
The brief, therefore contains a grounu
less c44arge against the purity of mo-
i tive Of the Judge OF the court below.
This we regard as a grave breach of
professional propriety. Every person
on his admission to the bar takes an
oath to faithfully discharge the du-
ties of an attorney and councelcr,"
Surely sucn a course as was taken in
this case is not in compliance W..
that duty In Friedlander ". sumner
/ G.. & S. NJ. Co., 81 .al. lit. The court
said:
eff unfortunately counsel in any
case shall ever SO far forget himself
as willfully to employ language mani
testify disrespectful to the judge of the
superior court-a thing not to be an
| JlC1DdloN-WG Shall uSSiu IL Jul Ouls
to treat such conduct as contempt o.
this court. and to proceed according
ly; and the briefs of the case were
order ed to be stricken from the flies.
In U. S. " Late Corporation of
Church of Jesus Chris. ct Later Ia:
Sairts. language used in the petition
filed in effect accusing the court OF
an attempt to shield its receiver anC
his attorneys from an investigation
of charges of gross misconduct in of
fee 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 $40.
In re Terry. 80 Fed. 419 an extrem'
case, for charging the court with hay
ing been bribed. resisting removal
from the court room by the marsha
I acting under an order from the bench
and using abusive language, one O
the defendants was sent to Jail TO
thirty days and the other for 81,
, months Judge -erry, who had no
made any accusation against TIL
court sought release and to be pure
ed of the contempt by a sworn petit
ion in which he alleged that in tn
2 transaction he did not have the slight
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 ac
: complish the natural result of one
? acts. and, when those acts are OF
: criminal nature, il will not accept
: against such implication the denial c
: the transgressor. No one would b
? safe if a denial or a wrongful or Grim
! | nal intent would suffice to realise tn
violator from the punishment due i
: his offenseS."
: In an application for a writ of ha
Y beas corpus growing out Of that cas-
] Justice Harlan. speaking for the 81
6 Dreme court Of the United States said
s eve have seen that it is a settled
c doctrine in the jurisprudence both {
o ENGLAND and of this country npVe