Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1921-11-09
CON TEMPT CASE
AGAINST MAGEE
THROWN OUT Of
DISTRICT COURT
Judge NJ, {. Hickey Rules
That Such Proceedings
Cannot Be Instituted By
Private individuals,
PASSES MATTER UP
TO BAR ASSOCIATION
viii Ask a Committee to
Az lin If Law Has
p. Violated # So,
l$SIt Course to Pursue,

SS fling that such proceedings
) - 1ntempt of court are criminal
3 their nature and must be
} ought in the name of the state
nd presented by the district at
torney or the attorney general,
Judge NJ. E. Hickey, in the district
court yesterday dismissed the con-
tempt proceedings brought by J.
M. Reynolds, president Of the First
National bank, against the Jour-
nal and its publisher.
The decision resulted from
motion of the defendants to dis
miss on the ground that such ac-
tions could not be brought by pri-
vate individuals. The arguments
consumed about two hours.
Judge Richard II. Hanna, rep
resenting the defendants, present.
ed the motion and opened the ar
gument. Judge Hanna pointed out
to the court a statute in New Mex
leo requiring that all actions in
which the state is interested, shall
be prosecuted by the district at
torney or the attorney general. He
then proceeded to show that the
pending action was not civil pro.
ceeding in which Mr.. Reynolds
was asking for a benefit to be
conferred upon him. but was GRIM
inal in it's nature because of the
offense committed, IL any. was
against the dignity of the state
and the penalty, upon conviction.
would be either fine which would
go to the state, or confinement
in the common Jail.
F. f. Wood, representing Mr.,
Reynolds. admitted the criminal
nature of the charge but insisted
that private parties had a right
to call the attention of the court
to the offense by sworn complaint
and that thereupon the court couli
issue citation for contempt,
thereby making the action one
brought by the state.
II. B. Jamison, for the defense,
pointed out to the court that the
procedure insisted upon by the de-
fendants was not a technical uliib-
bile but was essential to preserve
the defendants rights. Without |
the Representatives of the state In |
charge of the case there would |
be no one representing the state |
upon whom a writ OF error for |
of appeal, could be legal |
ly served In the event of con-
viction. He pointed out that the ,
decision in one case would not be |
res adjudicata as to another case
on the same facts that II Mr.. RAY |
nolds procured a conviction. the
decision in favor of Raynolds
would not prevent Mr. McMillen.
Or any one else who considered
aggrieved, from begging
4 new case for contempt. based
upon the same editorials.
Upon completion of the argu-
nents. Judge Hickey at once an
nounced his decision dismissing
he case. There was no hearing
On the merits.
After the decision Mr.. Wood
'alled the courts attention to the
sworn complaint of Mr.. Reynolds
md asked the court, on its own
to direct the district at
orney to file a contempt charge
n the name Of the state against
he defendants. To this the de-
endants objected. asking instead
nat the court instruct the district
lttorney to investigate the charges
md II, in his judgment, contempt |
lad been committed. to bring an
lction against the defendants The
lefendants suggested that II might
'e preferable to ask a group of
awyers to investigate and report
0 the court, whether or not. in
heir judgment a contempt had
'een committed.
Judge Hickey announced that he
would ask informally that the
members of the examining COM
nittee. Of the state bar associa-
Ion. as friends of the court, in
estigate the matter and advise
he court whether or not, in their
a contempt had been COM
nitted and. II so, what procedure
hey would advise. The members
4 this committee are C. M. Botts.
Z Albuquerque; Ira Grimshaw OF
ANITA Fe. and William ]. Lucas
+ Las Vegas.
Judge Hickey overruled the mo-
!on Of the defendants to strike
ne amended complaints of Messrs.
'aynolds and McMillen from the
les, for the reason that each pc
tion contained some matter {
'hich was properly there. The t
ourt has had this motion under (
dvisement since It was argued a s
eek ago. The defendants were +
wen 4S hours in which to plead \
lrther. :