El Nuevo mexicano., 1919-01-02

} charge the defendant.
REED HOLL0MAN. District Judg,
r. H. HANNA, Chief Jhstice,
/. Opinion No. 1902.
Parker J,
concur In the result reached BY
majority Of the court for the reasoj
that the information filed Is INSULT
Client to support the proceeding: |
WI for ANhe protection OF the public Il
the due Administrations OF justice tina
contempt proceedings are devised ans
authorized. In this case, however. thl
Information fails to allege certain nee
esstry facts in order TO make the pub
LEGATIONS complained OF contemptuoul
per Sc. After stating Judge Mechem,,
relations. personal, business and poll
tical with Mr.. Burnum, It states 'Ths
New Mexican has realized from the
beginning OF the Bursum libel suit
campaign that 1t must try It's case be.
tore the people, but the information
does not state by way Of innuendo or
otherwise that meaning thereby to
refer 10 Judge Meehem as a political
Judge IN whose court defendants could
not secure justice On account or the
political domination Of Mi. Bursum. .
doubtless this is what 1t may be in
ferred the publication was intended to
communicate to the public. The fact
remains, however, that 1t Is not SO al.
legged.
In this connection It is to BE renaem-
bered, as pointed out in the majority
opinion. that this Is a proceeding for.
2 criminal contempt and that many.
4 not most Of the attributes Of Grim
inal proceeding inhere in the same.
Thus It is said that such proceed
ings as these should conform as near.
" as possible to proceedings in Grim.
inal cases, the evidence must be SUI.
fieient to establish guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt, and the accused
should be bodily present in court at
the time Of the sentence. The re-
spondent IS not Obliged to incriminate
himself, and the rule against convic-
ton on the sole testimony OF an ac-
complete applies. on the other hand,
the proceeding differs from a strictly
criminal proceeding in some particu.
lars, The defense of double jeopardy
Is not available, and the respondent
Is not entitled to a formal trial. See
R. r. c. L., Title. Contempt, section
%, Another feature Of the proceed
ing may be illustrated by Suggesting
that courts possessing no criminal
Jurisdiction whatever, such as chan
:ery and probate courts, stili have all
he powers to punish for contempt
hat other courts possessing general
jurisdiction have The pro-
is not strictly a criminal prJ
nor a civil proceeding, but is
'ui geheris.
SO far as the guarantees usually at
a person Aargel with crime
ire concerned. however, the proceed
pg is essentially in its nature a Grim
raj proceeding and the respondent il
iurronnded by most Of these safe
/ see no reason, therefore, (
Why. those guarantees should no be
,xtended' to a respondent in a con-1t
empt proceeding, such as this, in re-.
ard to all or the essential features In. |
olved. There is no reason why the !
ules of pleading should be relaxed (
3 that the complaint or Information
hould be substantially less accurate |
r technical than an Indictment. The
on~sequences OF conviction are highly
email III character and the charge K
hould be substantially, il not tech I
ically certain and exact. v
1t may be admitted that any ordf- !
airy person reading the articles Y
yhich appeared in the newspaper Q
ould not but be impressed with the 8
lea that there was a more or less de- {
berate attempt on the part Of the {
ublishers to convey the idea that i
udge Mechem was dominated by per n
onal and political Influences so that o
lstice could not be obtained in his
5urt BY persons opposing those in /,
uences. But It remains, however, )
lie fact that 1t is not SO alleged in '
lie complaint or information, and g
ich a conclusion can only be drawn {
Y inference which might, vary ac n
riding to the mental attitude OF the /,
,ader. There is no absolutely GER I
in and unequivocaI deduction from
le publication which can be drawn =
could hardly be contended that the I,
iblications could be made the sub 4
ct Of a civil or criminal libel suit !
ithout the innuendo suggested. /,
Innumerable authorities have been :
in this connection and while :,
lere Is some divergence OF opinion !,
to the strictness with which com I
ANTS or information should be view !,
|, I believe that the general consen =
IS Of opinion of the courts Is that the ~
formation must and ought to be ex- \
icit and certain, and, II the article Il
qulres interpretation, the proper in, !,
rpretation thereof should be set out !"
way Of innuendo. 81,
For these reasons | agree IN the re- y
Ii. 4.
FRANK w. PARKER, Justice. s,
~ N1x15 Caaaa nf 70