El Nuevo mexicano., 1919-01-02

\ ~ HFf i"tNNA N"Wf NHNMh"M W. NAV fRt0A NAN
! i61 Ii kny event W. could hdt coI
lclpde rs a matter Of law that thi
reference TO this suit N It were pend
Ing, WORLD tend to obskFlct the order
,tiy course Of. justice III the cases Al
legged to have been pending.
In the second place, 1t Is shown b
the defendants answer that this par
ticular paragraph was not .containe'
In the article hs published, Thisis ad
niitted by the state. hence 1t can form
mo basis for the charge or contempt.
We have considered the paragraph
separately, but were we to consider
them as one article still we Dire forced
ito conclude that the article Is an at
tack upon alleged political conditions
rather than. an attack upon the court
The only reference to the Judge Is in
his Individual CAPACITY, and If in his
individual capacity a Judge Is criti
cised or libeled, his recourse is the
same as that afforded any private
citizen. unless 1t is shown and proved
that the libel tended TO obstruct the
Ordinary course Of justice in some
pending case or that 1t tended to ein-
barfass the Judge In the discharge
OF judicial functions in future matters.
The power given the court to
punish for indirect contempt Is not,
Jas generally considered by the laymsn
and too often by the profession, to BIZ
used as a means OF personal protec-
ton not accorded Is rther officsais. il
is not the personal dignity nor the
personal feelings Of the court that call
into operation this arbitrary power.
Attacks upon the character and con-
duct OF a judge, as an individual, may
be SO persistent and SO outrageous as
to amount to a contempt. but II Is
only when the attack upon the Judge,
as an individual. will tend to in
flnence, intiinidate or embarrass him
to such an extent as to obstruct the
due administration OF justice. Undue
praise or fulsome flattery may have
the same effect and under some cir
cumstances might amount to con
the same as unwarranted criti-
cism. It is not the judge as an indi-
who is protected by this right
to punish, but 1t is the party litigant
who is to be protected, and until the
publications complained Of reach the
point where they naturally tend to or
DO interfere with some pending mat
ter, they are not contemptuods, mol
how vicious Or unwarranted
hey may be.
Under our theory Of government the
light OF the freedom OF speech and Of
he press are essential to public well
are, and while the freedom of the
does not mean the license to
indulge In malicious, false or unwar-
'anted attacks. yet the force Of public
has greatly restrained the
,otirts in the exercise of power to
lunish for making disfespectful or in
urious remarks. Very often underl
he guise OF a guarantee OF freedom
be press INDUCES In false and unwar-
anted criticism, but when this criti-
ism is directed at a Judge his rem
dy Is the same as that given to a
rivatA citizen, unless, as we have
aid, It encfoaches on the right Of a J
and tends to obstruct Justice
4 some natter pending, or that may
mbarrass the Judge in d~ischAreihg {
Is judicial functions in future cases. {
Cheadle VS. State, 10 Ind. 301, J
Herald-Republican Pub, Co. v. Lew !
j, 1923 Pac,. ga. !
In a proceeding for indirect con.
smpt, consisting OF a publication in 2 !
ewspaper, ii the article is not con !
5mptuous per Sc and III does not ap- :
ear, unless aided by innuendo, to
snd to obstruct justice, and no in
uendo Is pleaded, and the defendant !
a sworn. answer specifically denies )
nv. intent to use the language in ais
belous manner or reflection upon J
ie honesty Of purpose Of the Judge, &
to embarrass or impede the admin !
traitor OF justice. such answer Will !
E taken as conclusive and the de-
,ndant discharged. ;
Percival v. State, As Neb. TAI, :
Fishback v. State, 80 N e. 1888. :.
Cheadle v. State, supra. =
Many other matters are raised by !.
)pellant in his brief, but 1t is only Y
scessary for us to consider one ;
her phase OF this action. AS above !
atedt this Is d criminal case, and Is J
,verned by the rules of criminal pro- y
idure. The defendant Is pSesumed
be innocent until proved guilty =
,yond a reasonable doubt, the same
4 defendant iii any criminal case, I
here are no presumptions taken Z
,ainst him, but the presumptions 8
b all in his favor. 1t is true he
ed an answer to the charges and I
me parts OF the, information are adj \
itted to be true. Only those parts y
hich are admitted to be true can be I
ken as proved against him. "
Neutrality-suspicious. Pub, Co. supra.
In this case it is alleged In the IN
rmation that said Bronson NJ, Cut
TX, and said Il. Dana Johnson caused I
be printed and published said above ]
med newspaper containing the fore.
ing article and caused the same TO
circulated and given general pub
ify. etc," This allegation is specif'
lilly denied BY the appellant. NO \
idence whatever was introduced BY !,
3 state to establish that allegation, 4
nsequently 1t must be taken as not
owed. II Is true that in his answer a
4 defendaht admitted that he was 3
& managing editor or the said news b
Der. but III the face or his sworn
niai that he caused to be printed, b
bIished Or circulated the newspaper &
dtaining the article complained Of, RI