The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-11-15
NOVEL POINTS OF THE LAW.

case involving the punishment OF a
Juror for contempt came before the SUI
preme Court OF Iowa in Murphy vs.
Wright in which the court held that where
a Juror, while serving as such, associated
with the defendants brother and visited
a saloon with him. where he drank with
the brother and with one OF the defend
ants witnesses. the Juror might be ad-
judged in contempt Tho court said The
trial courts are charged with the duty
and necessity OF guarding their proceed
ings against everything which interferes
or tends to interfere with the due and
orderly administration OF justice. and es-
pecially to protect their Jurors from even
the fair suspicion that their verdicts have
been affected by improper influences. No
juror. however honest OF purpose, can
properly expose himself to such suspi-
cion by intimate association. pending II
trial In which he Is engaged. with one
OF the parties or with a partys close rela-
tives, witnesses and cronies and II he
does so, we think the court ought not to
be held to exceed its rightful powers In
adjudging him TO be in contempt"
The Supreme Court OF New Jersey In
Smith VS. tho Board OF Predetermined holds
that statute providing for the sterlli-
zstlon OF epieptlcs and other diseased or
defective persons. including certain Grim
inals. confined in charitable or penal in
sttutlonA was unconstitutional because
denying the equal protection OF the laws.
The decision is followed by a recent ruling
of the United States District Court of
Iowa In Davis vs.. Berry. where the court
holds that statute providing for an
operation upon criminals twice convicted
OF felony on an order OF the state Board
or Parole, after hearing not open to
the public and OF which the criminal was
not advised until ordered TO submit to
the operation. IL unconstitutional as in
volving deprivation OF due process OF law.
The court said:
The hearing n by an administrative
board or officer. There Il no actual
hearing. There is no evidence. The
proceedings are private. The public does
not know what In being done until II
IL done. Witnesse are not produced,
or. n produced, they are not cross-cx-
amin~d. What records are examined is
not known. The prisoner il not advised
OF the proceedings until ordered TO CUB
NIT 10 the operation And yet in many
cases there will be- involved serious
controverted question OF fact. The rec
ords OF two convictions may show the
l 'ane name OF the party or parties con
victed but there are many men OF the
I
the person in the one case is the same
person convicted In the other case. II Is
common knowledge that many prisoners
take assumed names. Who IL TO deter
mine whether the various names repre-
sent one and the same person And II
one OF the convictions was in another
State tho question will arise whether IL
was for a felony. These are inquire.
that must be held In tho open. with full
. ..tAr. nf.f unit loo ~. M nd
! argument for and against. To uphold
this statute II must be affirmed that the
board of parole or prison physician mus,
hear the evidence and examine laws Of
other states without notice and ia the
prisoners absence and determine these
questions. And II determined adversely
| the prisoner has no remedy but must
submit to the operation"
Two members OF the court went 10 Far
~ TO hold that tho statute also pro
vided for a cruel and unusual punish
ment.