Case Name: THE STATE v. GOFF
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1832-08
Citations: 1 Ohio Ch. 78
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE STATE v. GOFF.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases at law and in chancery Ohio
Volume: 1
Pages: 78–79

Head Matter:
THE STATE v. GOFF.
Contempt — militia muster — martial music — disturbance of the court — discharge.
It is á contempt of court to muster and examine a militia company, with martial music, so near the court as to disturb its proceedings.
Proceedings in contempt, are not to secure respect to the individual judges, but to secure the majesty of the people, the dignity of the courts, and the uninterrupted administration of justice.
The military'must be subordinate to the civil power, or the country ceases to be free.
If there be no intentional contempt of the court, the party will be discharged.
Contempt. The defendant commanded a company of militia, had mustered them for exercise near the courthouse, while the court was sitting, and with martial music, in marching and exercising his men, so disturbed the business of the court, the trial of a case of murder, as to prevent its proceeding. A constable was despatched with a message from the court, requesting the officer on duty to have the music stopped, and the company removed further from the courthouse, which being delivered and disregarded, an attach ment was ordered, on which the defendant was taken, and brought into court, and detained in custody until the trial closed. Interrogatories were then propounded to him by the prosecuting attorney. In answer to these, the defendant acknowledged that he had received the message of the court, but declared, that without intending to disturb the court, or contemn its authority, he was marching the company off the ground, when he was arrested; and further, that the music which was first heard, and which occasioned the message of the court, was made before he took command of the company.

Opinion:
By the Court.
This proceeding is not to enforce respect to the individual judges on the bench, or to protect their dignity. It is to secure the administration of justice from interruption. It must be obvious, that amidst the din of arms and martial music, courts cannot proceed in the discharge of their duties: and though, as men, we should take no steps to enforce respect; yet, the majesty of the whole people of the state, and the dignity of their courts of justice, under our administration, must, and shall he respected. A military officer in command, who shall set at nought the duty of every good citizen to obey the laws and protect its ministers, will find his authority inadequate to protect him from punishment, if he merit it. The civil authority and the laws must predominate over the pride and will of military officers, as well as of individuals.' It frequently happens, that militia musters take place while the courts are sitting; but we have never before met a case, where the officer, upon request, has not silently removed his command. The military power is bound to protect the courts; and, the country will no longer be free, when the military is arrayed against the civil power. The etiquette which would induce a militia officer to assert a right in the troops to march off the ground with martial music, to the annoyance of the courts, should not be the subject of contest between the courts of justice and the military.
As all intention of disturbing the court is disclaimed by the officer before us, and supposed to be the act of a subordinate officer, and to have been more thoughtless than wilful, he may be discharged, on paying the costs.