Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-04-27

"tutemptuOuS, angry or insulting ex.
LESSONS at every adverse ruling I'M
=, it become the courts clear du,y
o check the habit BY the Sc ere ,es-
on CT a punishment 70 contempt
The single insulting expression for
.n.cA the court -pJn.snes IA there
fore seem to these knowing nothing OF
the prior conduct of the attorney ana
looking only at the single remark. a
ct er. which might wei be unnotic-
ed; and yet if all the conduct of the
tttlrney was known, the duty of in
re ference and punis ment might he
clear
We remark finally, that while from
the 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 he used tyrannically and unjust
ly, yet protection to individuals lies
in the publicity Of all judicial pro-
Gee ngs, and the appeal which may
be made to the legislature for
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 a certain CUES
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 a
loud tone and insulting manner:
She has not answered the question"
held that the attorney was guilty of
contempt regardless of the question
whether the decision Of e court was
right or wrong" Russell V. Circuit
Judge. 81 Iowa. 1912.
In Sears V. Starblrd, Is Cal. 81, 7
Am. St. 1l3. brief rejecting uD0n
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 cause, the parties 10 il or
their counsel, or from an overzealous
desire to adiudicate all matters. points
argum ents 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 a condition as TO entitle them to
no relief whatever"
In reference to this language it was
said in the opinion:
"lere is ----,-nCt animation that
the Judge of lie court below did not
act from proper motives. but from a
lCve 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. AZ Cal. $40
The brief. therefore contains grounu
less Cargo against the purity of mo-
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 ar
cath to faithfully discharge the du.
ties Of an attorney AMI cnuncelcr.'
Surely sucn a course as was taken ir
| this case is not in compliance W.
that duty. In Friedlander V. Sumne,
G.. Il S. NJ Co., 81 .al. III. The cour'
said:
IF unfortunately counsel in any
case shall ever so far forget himself
as wilIfully to employ Language mani
testify disrespectful to the Judge of tn
superior court-a thing not to be an
ticipated-we shall deem it our dut.
to treat such conduct as a contempt o
this court, and to proceed according
ly; and the briefs of the case were
order ed to be stroke, from the flies.
In U. S. v. Late Corporation Of
Church, of Jesus Chris. Of Later Ia.
Sairts. language used in the petition
filed in effect accusing the court o.
an attempt to shield its receiver ant
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 a grand jury, or attemp
to perform the duty of the court il
investigating the CONDUCT of its off
GERS. was held to be contemptuOus
2l1 P. 5l9.
In re Terry, SO Fed. 419 an eXtrem
case. for charging the court with haV
ing peen bribed resisting removal
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 TO
thirty days and the other for 81.
, months. Judge -erry, who had no
made any accusation against tn
court sought release and to be pure
ion in which he alleged that in tn
: transaction he did not have the Sigh
est idea of showing any disrespect t
the court It was held that this coul
+ not avail or relieve him and it wa
: said:
The law imputes an intent TO az
complish the natural result OF one
, acts. and. when those acts are OF
: criminal nature. it will not accept
against such implication the denial {
the transgressor. No one would b
> safe if a denial or a wrongful or Grim
raj intent would suffice to realise til
violator from the punishment due i
: his offenses."
i In an application for a writ of ha
Y beas corpus growing out of that cas'
I Justice Harlan, speaking for the 81
: preme court of the United States said
: I'VE have seen that it is settlet
{ doctrine in the Jurisprudence both {