El Nuevo mexicano., 1919-01-02

I |AAE% N#+N .W"A K"|" -
paper; they admitted Bronson y
Cutting was the president; but the
! denied that the said Cutting was 4
I full or other control Of the policy Q
the said newspaper, but alleged tina
] the management of the policy an
! control Of said newspaper was svesl
; ed in the board Of directors of th,
New Mexican Printing Company. tn
owner of said newspaper, and no
; otherwise; they alleged that the a
legged newspaper article, as set fortl
IN the information, was, Inaccurate
and Incomplete: they denied tina
Bronson M, Cutting or q. Dana John
son or either OF them, caused tbs
said newspaper to be printed or pub
lished or to be circulated In any ri
the counties OF the Seventh Judicial
district. or. elsewhere, and alleged
that said newspaper. articles were
not printed. published or circulated
OF or concerning any pending cause,
or of or concerning said court o.
Judge and its or his supposed action
with reference to said causes, or
either of them.
They further allege that said ar
ticles, and each Of them, were print
ed, published and circulated without
any intent. purpose or design on the
part of the defendants, or any OF
them, to attack the integrity OF the
said court or Judge, either generally
or in relation to either Of said al
legged pending causes. anu Without
purpose. intent or design to influence
public opinion against the said court
or the Judge thereof. or to bring 1t
or him into contempt or d~isrepute,
and without purpose, intent or de-
sign to influence, intimidate or Co
cree the said court, or the said
judge, in its or his determination
of any of the issues in either OF
said alleged pending asses. and with
out purpose. intent or design to pre-
vent fair or impartial action by the
said court or Judge In either OF uhe
said causes; and without purpose,
intent or design to reflect upon the
said Judge or court or others inter-
ested in any pending cause or re-
sDecting the same, and without pur-
pose, intent or design to corrupt or
embarrass the due administration OF
Justice by said court or judge, and
they allege that neither Of said ar
ticles was calculated to have, or did
have, any such effects or results.
Many other things were set forth In
the defendants answer which it is
Unnecessary to consider.
No denial OF the answer was filed
by the State.
The action was called for trial,
and the only evidence introduced was
record evidence to show that
the causes mentioned in the informa
ton we're pending causes at the time
Of the alleged, contemptuous publica-
ton. The defendants moved for a
Judgment, which was overruled, and
elected to stand on the motion with
out Introducing any evidence. Judg-
ment was rendered against appellant
and he was sentenced to serve al
OF thirty days in the county
Iail, from which Judgment this ap.
peal is prosecuted.
(1) Authorities are practically I'M
animous that any publication calcul-
lted to intimidate, influence, I'M
,ede, embarrass or obstruct courts
h due administration Of justice in
matters pending before them consti-
a contempt of court. II is fur !
her frequently stated that any will
ul act or conduct or any publication
which has a tendency to prevent :
fair trial, or tends to prejudice
he public or jurors against an ae- ,
used person FOR an offense, or tends {
0 prejudice the rights Of either !
to a civil action. may be pub /
shed as for contempt Of court. \
neutrality-suspicious. Pub. Co. ct al. T
Lewis, district judge, 1923 Pac. 624, !
nd cases cited. I!
In End Bishop on Criminal Law,
tn Ed, Sec. 259. 1t is said: :
Again, according to the general !
octrine, any publication, whether by :
or strangers, relating to a }
In court, tending to prejudice 1
he public as to its merits, and to .
orrupt the administration OF Justice I
may be visited as a con- !
empt." q
In the Supreme Court OF Wiscon :
In, in the case OF =
State v. Circuit Court, ~ N. Will.
SO, and 3S L. r. IA. 554 ~
is said. ~
"A criminal contempt at common !,
NV may he generally defined as any
ct which tends to obstruct the !
Of Justice, or to prejudice the 2
ial in any action or proceeding ?
pending in court" p
In the case of Il.
State v. Cheadle, 10 Ind, $40, the :
upreme Court or Indiana said: III
1T may be said generally that any I,
illful act done to obstruct, inter u
re, or enibarrass the proceedings =
I a court, or to corrupt or impede g
lie due administration Of justice, IS a
contempt Of the authority or the
,urt, against which such willfut e
It is directed" pl
In the case OF State v. Edwards, Il
S. d. 1856, in speaking of what Nv
institutes constructive contempt, II
IL Supreme Court said:
"0nly such publications as are cal NJ
Hated to influence, intimidate, inn Oh
sde, embRrrass, or obstruct courts ce
the due administration of justice fu
matters pending before them CON d,
Indirect or constructive con "
mpt." N
(2) This IS a case charging con-a
contempt, and is a criminal II
'oceeding, and the information, the Il
lthority OF the court, the weight OF q,
y - 0-AL 4-AaAM1- 81 II n4a-AA "