Court Opinion

ID: 9564987
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:12:51.628398+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:18.301449
License: Public Domain

Russell, Judge,
concurring specially. The trial judge should have granted plaintiff in error a continuance for proven sickness. Statements of the trial judge and medical examination (by county doctors) clearly indicate this.
When the trial judge determined that a continuance was demanded he should not have attached certain conditions thereto. These and the question of jurisdiction could have been vexatious to a sick attorney.
The fact that the court was in error, the failure of the court to grant a continuance and sickness of counsel do not relieve counsel of his obligations to the court. These constitute facts which should be considered by the trial judge as to whether or not a contempt has been committed. If the trial court determines that a contempt was committed, then these facts should be considered in mitigation in assessing punishment.
Error on the part of the trial court, and sickness on the part of counsel are not matters of absolution for the crime of contempt.
The respect and absolute decorum which a lawyer owes to the judge on the bench is exacted, not because of the person of the man within the robe, but as a tribute to the same high standards of respect for the law which the court in its representative capacity embodies, and the outward expression of that respect, to the office regardless of the man, is a necessary attribute of the administration of justice. It was early held and has *627been often repeated that in contempt cases the discretion of the judges of the superior courts will never be controlled unless there is a gross, flagrant, and enormous abuse of discretion. Cabot v. Yarborough, 27 Ga. 476, supra.
Therefore, the case should be affirmed.