El Nuevo mexicano., 1919-01-02


pending, therefore it viii be necei
FAry 70 LOOK 70 the article ITSELF i
1Bee If 1t whs of Hheh 4 CHARACTER a
would likely pr Weuld pc ~cAlcuIate'
To b~f6judice Or prevent q faar AM
impartial trial in either Of the cause
then pending.
II is apparent that the theory o
the Information is that the pubIica
ton was contemDtuous per Sc in tina
was calculated to interfere with
the due administration OF Justice II
either OF both OF the caiises alleged
to have been pending.
Constituting this article strictly, III
Is required In this sort OF an action
can st be said that II was contempt
uobs per Sc, and that II was eaicu
lated. to interfere with the due ad'
ministration Of justice in either OF
such causes?
IN this case necessarily the State
is limited by the allegations Of the
information.
To the Information is attached
what purports to be a report of
amici curiae who, at the request OF
the court, had made the report re-
garding the article alleged to have
been cOntemptuOus. This Is not made
a part OF the information by refer
ence or, otherwise, and It is doubtful
If 1t could be, It has no proper place
in the record and cannot be CON
sidered by the court for any purpose.
It appears that the article set forth
in the Information is only a part OF
the article as. published, the entire
article being set, out IN the answer.
That, however, Is immaterial as the
State IS limited to that part Of the
set UP in the information, re-
CARELESS of what appears In the en-
tire article. The defendant, in his
answer, denies that the article as
set out in the information was as
published, and points out the alleged
discrepancies. However, we are not
concerned with what was really pub
lished except as 1t bears upon the
proof of the charge, but are limitedl
IN our investigation to what is al
to have been published as set
in the information. If it u.s.
not shown by the evidence that the
as set out in the information
was a true copy Of the published ar
,icle, il is a failure of proof. IL 1t
set out as it was published, then
I is necessary to investigate as to
whether the article is contemporary
In considering this question wheth-
n or not the article is contemptu0us
Ter Sc, we must do so in connection
With the defendants answer, for the
'eason that in the answer 1t Is de-
lied that the publication, as set out
n the information was accurate. In
he answer the defendants purpbrt
o set forth the entire article as pub
ished, and the article as set forth in
he answer is admitted by the State
o be correct.
"As this Is a criminal proceeding, j
q considering tie probable effect OF I
he publication every. fair and reas, I
nable inference consistent with the 1
heory of defendants innocence
hould be INDUCED" II
State v. Edwards, Is s. D. SS3. I.
The above quotation is merely de-. :
Of a primary principle of .
law and. necessarily is ap-l !
to the case at bar Applying J
above principle to the article as
st out in the information, was it !
1ntemptuous per Sc? r, !
The only reference to either of the !
alleged TO have been pending 2
in the first paragraph Of the afti-lh
e, This paragraph referred to the
case and is as follows:
THE filing OF an affidavit by l.
ldge Merit G. Mechem OF the
sventh Judicial District, not in his Il
capacity, but as a private In n
vidual, seeking to ~exonerates Att {,
irney M. G. Spicer of the charge OIL
signalling to witness and /,
Henry Dreyfus during the n
ial Of his alleged libel suit against /,
q New Mexican at Los Lunas, 4
proper and necessary the pub Il
by this newspaper Of many
tails of the conduct OF the Drey-fn'
s case hitherto unpublished, and y
pecially relating to the presiding I
dge.p =
While that paragraph says that the =
ing Of the affidavit by Judge
echem made it necessary and prop
to publish certain details, vat
where in the article is there an
Tempt to set out a single detail Of aj
at trial. In
The second paragraph refers to an oi
1ictment against this newspaper" st
I makes no reference to any indict- 6,
snt against the defendant. Further, ct
e second paragraph in no way refers to
the cases pending or to the judge, b,
I merely recites that after the hap-a az
ming Of a certain event this news-tT
per has never been under any de- 4,
iions as to what it was UP against al
the campaign Of H. o. Bursum.H It III
impossible to construe this para. Sc
aph as a reflection in any way upon ID
> court, but must be construed as W
statement relating to an existing ia
ntroversy between the newspaper
d II. o. Brrsum.
rhe next two paragraphs merely TO
d caustic criticism 81 alleged Iii
litical conditions in certain parts oil to
, state Of New Mexico, but in 40 pa
do they refer to the court or totkc
J causes pending, lbe
rhe next paragraph refers to Judge Tx
chem as being a strong supporter ic
III o, Bursum. 1t alleges that he et
itribdted TO Bursum's campaign III
ID; Is a business associate; strong Go
rsoAal friend, etc. we fail to see pr
erein II can be seriously ~contended III
a. 4 Ill I'll tLL4 +L aW - ~