Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-05-01

dependence, may become want to use
contemptuous, angry or insulting ex
pressions at every adverse ruling u,,-
1h it become the courts clear dug
to check the hapit by re severe les
son of a punishment TO contempt
The single insulting expression for
which the court pun4sD-. may there
fore seem to thu Sc 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 hnOwn, the duty of in
reference and punis ment might be
clear
We remark finally, that while from
the very nature of things the power
of 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 NJ
proceedings against any judge who
proves himself unworthy of the power
intrusted to hlm.
Where a 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 to his feet,
and. turning to the court, sad, in a
4 loud tone and insulting manner:
She has not answered the question"
/ held thai the attorney was guilty of
contempt regardless of the question
waether the decision of e court was
right or wrong Russell V. Circuit
7 Judge. 81 Iowa, 102.
In Sears V. Starblrd, Is Cal 81. Z
Am st. 113. a brief rejecting un0n
the trial Judge was stricken from the
record in the Supreme Court, beca use
it contained the following:
''The court, out o. a fullness Of his
love for cause, the parties - Il 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. whic., perhaps, the care
lessness Of their counsel had left in
such a condition as to entitle them &c
no relief whatever"
In reference to this language it was
said in the opinion:
lere is ~----nct intimatiOn that
the Judge of ,ne court below did not
act from proper motives, hut from 9
iCvp Of the parties or their counsel
We see nothing il the record Whic'
suggests that such was the case. Or
the contrary, e action complained o
seems to us TO have been entirely
proper: See Sill V. Reese, II Cal. 80
The brief. therefore contains grounu
less Cargo against the purity of mo-
, tive of the Judge O. the court below
This we regard as a grave breach OF
professional nropriety. Every person
on his admission to the bar takes al
, cath to faithfully discharge the du
ties of an attorney ana councelcr
Surely sucu a course as was taken il
this case is not in compliance W
that duty. In Friedlander V. oumne
| G.. 4 s. NJ Co. 81 \ al. III. I he cOuT
: said:
If unfortunately counsel in any
f case shall ever So far forget himseI
: as willfully to employ language mani
festlv disrespectful to the Judge Of III
superior court-a thing not to be an
ticipated-we shall deem it cur duc
to treat such conduct as a contempt 0
, this court, and to proceed according
) lv and the briefs of the case wer
!, order ed to be strlci.en from the flies.
In L. 5. V Late Corporation O
t Church of Jesus Christ Of Later Ia
, Sairts language used in the petite
+ filed in effect accusing the court 0
4 an attempt to shield its receiver an
/ his attorneys from an investigation
i of charges Of gross misconduct in Of
, fee and containing the statement tia
u I'VE must decline to assume tn
Il functions of 3 grand jury, or attemr
: to perform the duty Of the court i
Q investigating the conduct Of its of
/. GERS. was held TO be cOntemptuous
oil P. 5l9
7 In re Terry. 36 Fed. 419 an eXtrem
y case. for charging the court with ha7
e ing peen bribed, resisting remcva
s from the court room by the marsha
II acting under an order from the bencl
6 and using abusive language. ono {
/. the defendants was sent to Jail fc
r thirty days and the other for 81
e months Judge cry, who had NJ
l. made any accusation against tn
: court SOUGHT IGIGa0b anu ~ w tJt@
IS ed of the contempt by sworn pei
r ion in which he alleged that in tn
e transaction he did not have the Sigh
t est idea Of showing any disrespect
! the court It was held that this cou1
e. not avail or relieve him and it wa
IS said:
i The law imputes an intent to a
$ complish the natural result Of one
e acts and. when those acts are of
e criminal nature. it will not accep
r against such implication the denial
b the transgressor. No one would
e safe if a denial CT wrongful or erin
f. nal intent would suffice TO realise L
II violator from the punishment due
+ his offenses."
d In an application for writ If b
" beas corpiIs growing out Of that cas-
n Justice Harlan, speaking for the s
is preme court Of the United States sal
is eve have seen that it is a settle
70. lOcfrinp in The Jurisprudence both