Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-04-06


ressions at every adverse ruling I'M
Il it become the courts clear duty
check the habit bv the severe les
On of punishment for contempt
The single insulting expression for
hich the court punisnes may there
ere seem to these knowing nothing OF
he prior conduct of the attorney, ana
looking only at the single remark,
after which might well 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
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 tyrannically and unjust
lily. yet protection to individuals lies
the publicity of all judicial pro-
ceel ngs. and the appeal which may
We made to the legislature for pro-
proceedings against eny judge who
proves himself unworthy Of the power
intrusted to him"
Where a contention arose between
counsel as to whether a witness had
net already answered a certain ques-
ton and the court after hearing the
, reporters notes read, decided that
she had answered it. wheTeupon one
! of the attorneys sprang to his feet.
and turning to the court, sad. in
lcud tone and insulting manner:
She has not answered the question
held that the attorney was guilty of
contempt regardless of the question
W ether the decision Of e court We
right or wrong Russell v. Circuit
Judge. 81 Iowa. 1o2.
In Sears V Starbird. - Cal. 81. Z
! Am. st. 1k3. brief rejecting upon
/ the trial Judge was stricken from the
/ record in the Supreme Court, because
! it contained the following:
! The court. out o. 3 fulneSs of his
toye for a cause, TIE pafJleS ~ 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
plain. ifs, whicu, perhaps. the care
lessness of their counsel had left in
such A. conuition as to entitle them t.
no relief whatever
said in the opinion:
8. ere is net intinatiCn thai
the Judge of e court below did no.
act from proper motives. but from :
,lCve Of the parties or their counsel
We see nothing IN lii, record Which
suggests that such was the case. o.
the contrary. e action complained 0
: seems to us 10 have been entrel,
: proper: See Sill V. Reese. Al Cal. SAC
, The brief therefore contains groun~
, less Cargo against the purity of mo
tive Of the Judge G. the court below
This we regard az grave breach 0
: professional propriety. Every person
| on his admission to the bar takes al
cath to- faithfully discharge the du
ties of an attorney ana counCe!cr
, Surely suc4, a course as was taken il
this case is not in compliance W
I that duty. In F>riedlander " Sumne
G. & S. NJ Co, 81 lai. tit. The cour
+ said:5a - .1asv- ri t5-.s.rr,
: +. III unfortunately ,coupse! in an,
case. shall ever SO far fors,t h:nsci
) as w1llfully to employ language man
testify disrespectful to the jodge of th
;. superior court--a thing not, to be ar
T. tieipated-we shall deem it our. dut
to treat such conduct asa contempt {
, this court, ana to proceed according
. ~: and the briefs Of the case wer
!. prdelN to be strokes, from the f;es.
. /. In u. S.. ", Late Corporation o
t Church Of Jesus Chs; III Iatst cs
J Saints. language used hi the Ipetitio
!. died in effect accusing the court Q
1 + an attempt to shield its receiver an
7 his attorneys from an if1vestigAtio,
4 Of charges Of gross misconduct tn o.
| fee and containing the statement tbs
a I'VE must decline, to assume tn
i functions of a grand jury. or attemr
: to perform the duty Of the court i
g investigating the conduct of its Oh
!. GERS, was held to be contemptuOus
21l P. BIS. = ..tf.... .*,.>-.tt.r
I In re- Terry. SO Fed. us an extrem
r case. for charging the court with ha'
E ing oeen briben,, resisting renaFa
8 from the court room BY the marshs
a acting under an order from the benc]
. and using a'busive language; one c
l. the defendants was sent TO Jail f
x thirty days and the other for 81
9 months, Judge -.erry. who had ne
l. made any accusation against tn
!, I court sought release and to be pur'
e ed Of the contempt hyy a sworn p:ti
r ion in which he alleged that in th
e transaction he did not have the Sigh
t est idea Of showing any disrespect
J. the court 1t was heldlt this eou
p not avail or relieve him and it va
IS said:
n "The law imputes an intent to a
j. complish the natural result OF one
Z acts, and. when those acts are OF
e terminal nature, it will not accep
' against such implication the denial Z
l. the transgressor. No one would +
e safe il. a denial or a wrongful or GRIN
b !. nal intent would suffice to realise II
i violator from the punishment due
f. his offenses." 7..
T. In an application for a writ of ii
" beas corpus growing out of that cas-
ii Justice Harlan. speaking for the S
is preme court of the United States sal
is eve have seen that it is settle
10 doctrine jim the Jurisprudence both