Evening capital news. (Boise, Idaho) 1901-1927, 1913-01-02

fore stated. great or any public interes
does not demand the malicious defam
alton and utilization of our courts.
The information states cause O
contempt.
/ "(2) 1t is next contended by coun.
| sci that the state should have beer
made the plaintiff in this proceeding
! That contention is without merit al
| this is not a criminal action but a pro
ceeding to punish summarily for con
| tempt and the statute does not require
that such proceedings be brought III
| the name OF the state Certain con-
| tempts, however are made crimes by
our statute and are punishable by in
formation or Indictment the same as
any other crime, and In such an actor
the state must be made plaintiff
But In a proceeding for contempt, It Is
not necessary to name the state as
plaintiff In the punishment OF crimes
on information and indictment, the de-
PENDANT Is entitled to jury, but not SC
in contempt proceedings
ut was held in In re Debs, 1853 L. s
594. 80 L. Ed, 1892, that one accused of
contempt is not entitled to jury trial
and In In re Fellerman, 149 Fed. 244
that contempt proceeding Is sui
generis. and that 1t may be considered
as having the same meaning as a mis-
demeanor but 1t differs from 1t In this
that 1t is not indictable but punishable
summarily. No court has ever held that
a party Is entitled to trial by jury In
a proceeding for contempt. 1t must
therefore follow that the rules regard :
ing the trial for crimes by information
or indictments are not applicable to
proceedings for contempt We have
no statute requiring contempt proceed
ings to be brought in the name of the
state. In the Chadwick case, 109 Mich.
SIS, the contempt proceeding was en-
titled I'm re Chadwick In a New
Mexico contempt proceeding against
Hughes ct al. the case was entitled
"ln re Hughes ct al" This proceeding
was begun In the name Of and by the
attorney general Of the state and was
properly brought In that name There
is, therefore, nothing in the contention
that the state should have been named
as plaintiff.
"(3) The third point contended for
by counsel for the Defendants Sheridan
and Broxon was that the publications
referred to in the information were
made in regard to the decision of the
court In the case of the state of Idaho
on the relation of Spofford versus w
l.. Clifford. as secretary of the state Of
Idaho, and that said case had been
finally determined and was not pending
before the court at the time said pub
locations We're made.
THE original decision in that case
was handed down on the Sth Of Oc-
tober, 1912, and the petition for rehear-
ing was filed on the 18th of October,
which was considered by the court and
denied on the 23rd of October, 1912
The cause was therefore pending until
the petition for rehearing was deter
mined and the principal publications
and articles referred to In said infor-
nation were published prior to that
date. Those published after and at
tached to said information simply show
the viciousness OF the former publica-
lions.
AT the time the Spofford- Clifford
case was decided, the court concluded 1t
would give the usual time for present
ing n petition for rehearing. After the
opinion In said case was filed. there was
much newspaper talk about Il petition
for a rehearing and on the 18th of Oc-
tober, seven days after the rendition
of the decision. a petition for rehear-
ing was filed signed by Harry Kessler,
II. +. McElroy. j. J. Plowhead and
Ben L. Tweedy, as attorneys for the
defendant which attorneys are mem
bers Of the bar of this court and In
Efo Ji,aC lpf- tsx1Yf
sent said petition has not been ques-
toned. on said petition for rehearing
the court proceeded in good faith to
re-examine the case and upon reaching
a conclusion, the rehearing was denied
and there can be no question in this
case but that said case was pending
until the 23rd day or October, 1912,
when said petition for rehearing was
denied.
1t was held in State Y. Tugwell, 10
Wash. 23S, that a contemptuous publ
cation made after the rendition OF the
decision and after the time for re-
hearing has elapsed Is nevertheless
made concerning pending suit IL time
still remains for application for the
Of the opinion However,
there are Il number of well considered
cases which hold that the power of the |
court to punish for contempt is not
limited to cases pending. But il is not |
necessary for us to pass upon that |
question in this case. In re Chadwick |
100 Mich. 5SS; State ex rel Attorney
General V. Hildreth tVt1 "A Att II, "a |
L. r. A. On. 81 SOL: State ex rel Crow
= Shepherd. III Mo. POS; Burdett v |
Commonwealth. 1o3 Va s3s. 6s l.. r. |
4. Psi; Commonwealth V. cambridge,
Va Cases, 40S; State V. Merrill 16 |
Ark 3S4; In re Fite (Ga.). IS S. E. 397. |
The latter is very carefully consid-
red case and is illuminative of sew
aral of the questions herein involved.
't(D The fourth contention Is that
his court has no Jurisdiction of this
counsel centending that
'tnce the contempt charged is crimi-
lal constructive contempt and crimi-
lal offense. the proceedings in the
Of criminal effenses must