Cooper v. People Ex Rel. Wyatt

Cooper y. People 337 ex rel. essary assignments consider error remaining of either behalf The district party. judgment court is reversed for further accordance proceedings opinion. with this

Reversed. Cooper People Wyatt. et al. v. ex rel. op Judgments por Contempt op — Review

1. Construction Stat- providing judgments ute.— The statute that “the and orders of contempt the court made in cases of shall be final and ” only conclusive has reference to the extent review such cases, review, not to the mode of by whether writ of error otherwise. op op Contempt 2. Error.— proceedings' Extent Review on Writ may brought supreme to the court ofwrit error from the judgment, final only but review such writ extends to an inquiry entering into the coxxrt judgment. — presented When an 3. Jurisdiction.— affidavit is aas basis Same proceeding must, contempt, of a instance, the court in the first and, same, presented examine the if the facts do show that a committed, contempt has jurisdic- been will be without sufficient, if proceed; tion the facts may the court jurisdiction, subsequent take its will orders not be reviewed for mere ei'rors. op Contempt— Power Inherent District Courts to Punish for Right Jury No in Such Cases. —The district courts Trial power summarily of this state have the inherent convict and punish, responsible those for articles published pending, in reference to a cause when such articles are justice to interfere with the due calculated administration of present any such cause. Neither statutes nor the constitution powers. right by jury barrier to the exercise of such The of trial contempt. power does punish not extend to cases of The sum- marily very in such cases essential to the existence of a court. contrary place rule would power person it in of vicious prevent to so conduct as to himself kind of a trial. Liberty Speech — liberty speech 5. Abuse.— While Press constitution, press guarantied and of the our subsequent clause responsi- of the same sentence in which this is declared the bility for its abuse is fixed. XIII Yol. —22 T. [Sepfc. Rights elective, — judiciary is us the With and Limitations.— Same 6. or unfit- freely the fitness may fully discuss every citizen they aspire, criticise to which positions for the of all candidates ness argument establish rendered, by legitimate and freely all decisions fidelity in- unsoundness, or and comment their soundness duties; but the discharge their fidelity judicial which officers with defamation, rights prejudice of by-wanton to attempt, right to tribunal, impede, cause, em- degrade and pending litigants in a justice which is so of corrupt administration that due barrass good government, be sanctioned. cannot essential Corpus Writ Presumed. to Issue Jurisdiction Habeas — When

7. judges thereof and the By of this state statute the district courts the writ of habeas given general jurisdiction to issue exioressly particular case writ a issue the corpus, and the contrary. showing to the presumed in absence of a will be Comity.— Principles — district A of Elliott Per Mr. Justice release authority by corpus to judge habeas has no court or district contempt prisoner criminal court a commitment a under court has authority the criminal against in matter wherein a its juris- judge jurisdiction; and, general, one court should authority dignity. diction of another tribunal of co-ordinate comity principles prevail. The of should Error to Arapahoe County. District Court of Hill, with one hi. P. error, together Plaintiffs and show were, below, appear the court ordered as for should not be why they punished cause Denver of on account of the publication having at and published Republican, daily newspaper where the court Denver, circulation in.the city a large with a large held, articles, together certain being in said pending all to a cause cartoon, reference having affida- following court. The matter was heard upon vit and answer: “ — In ss. County Arapahoe Colorado, State the district court. “ relation on the Colorado, State Q. Hill, Kemp John Nathaniel P. Wyatt, J. vs. and William Stapleton. oath sworn, deposes John J. on his Wyatt, being duly proceed- That he in a certain says: is the petitioner Cooper y. People ex rel. for a writ of habeas ing corpus now pending this that court; under certain warrant of commitment, out of the issued criminal court Arapahoe county, was, affiant 11th of 1889, on the A. D. July, arrested taken to the county jail of county; said as soon as practicable after said this affiant had prepared, arrest verified, himself writ duly petition for a of habeas corpus, by his counsel applied George Allen, W. one judges court, to hear and act upon same; that said then and there to the coun- stated sel of this affiant that he was much in im- engaged so portant trials then pending his division said that he could not, trials, reasonable attention to said give the time and attention to said application affiant’s which its importance demanded, and affi- suggested ant’s counsel to one of the said apply judges other of court; that thereupon the counsel to O. B. applied Hon. Liddell, another of the judges of hear court, to said said petition; that said last-named stated said judge that counsel he was worn already by protracted hearings, a and had crowded docket of immedi- hearings requiring ate attention, and requested said counsel to apply of another the judges"of said court whose docket was not at that time crowded; so that thereupon said of counsel affiant this presented said petition Stuart, Hon. T. B. a judge of said and requested that veri- said fied honor, petition his would Judge Stuart, order the of a of issuance writ habeas and admit corpus, this affi- ant to bail until a could be had as to the hearing legality that an imprisonment; of his order to that effect was in- upon said petition by honor, dorsed his and writ issued in therewith, accordance and a bond executed this accordance, affiant that order; terms said said cause was, 1889, on said 11th docketed day July, this as cause Ho. it now 11,230, remains, where and is still affiant undetermined; appeared person Judge his counsel at court before honor his Coopee ex eel. [Sept. T., at Stuart, of court on the 12th opening Friday, day aforesaid, to the July inst., pursuant order there to abide order which the court make in might and at the premises, attorney district then request and there of said cause and further present hearing action therein was postponed, and by agreement set down on the 15th hearing Monday, instant. day July

“And affiant on oath your states on the morning, 13th Saturday, July inst., the Denver Eepublican, newspaper published in Denver, contained city the following articles to said cause and the pertaining action of this court and matters, thereof said to wit:

“ ‘ Stuart was Tool. “ ‘ The District Court Released Judge Johnny Wyatt — Power A Stretching Court

Bail — Fanciful Finds a Steps Who Out- Willing Judge, Affidavit side a Precedent and Nulli- Warrant Legal — the Power to Punish Court Contempt fies Continued Stuart’s Court Proceedings Judge until Nevo Moves Be Made Monday, May Some To-day. swore to a fiction.

“‘Johnny Wyatt gauzy Judge did a annals. He thing unprecedented legal Stuart on bail on a habeas prisoner released corpus proceed- nullified a court’s power ing, punish contempt. “It was Stone who Judge granted the application jail for J. J. release from Wyatt’s bail. led Wyatt to believe Eepublican Thursday night was He Stone. was released from on the order jail .of Judge B. who Stuart, Thomas allowed bail to be ac- Judge To his release made oath that he Wyatt cepted. secure law, detained without due warrant or process he knew it was To about a bring hearing when false. body a habeas corpus court orders proceeding writ is him, to be before prisoner brought returnable at once. If the court is not prepared at that time to hear argument he case sets time, and remands the prisoner. That was the way Johnny got out of jail on Thursday night. Through continuance of Judge Stuart’s unwarranted proceeding, Wyatt is at and will liberty still, be, if Stuart can have his way, until Monday. Judge postponed a hearing Stuart the matter until yesterday and he Monday, knows he will have nothing more to do the case. The same procedure could have been taken the coun- yesterday by sel of and the Wyatt, supreme court could have been appealed just but it quickly; needed the unwar- ranted interference of a district court who would step outside of a legal precedent to keep precious Johnny out of jail for two or three days.’ follows the [Here publication an alleged interview with Judge Stone.] Johnny

“‘How Got Out. ‘“Judge Stuart was at sought his residence 9at o’clock Thursday night by who had Wyatt’s attorneys, a petition already prepared for a writ of habeas corpus. was made out petition Wolcott & Yaile’s law office days several ago, Messrs. Riddell and Easley had to secure a of the warrant copy for commitment be- fore could they it to a present judge. It is a voluminous petition, reviews whole proceedings substance. It signed by Wyatt. sworn Upon oath he claimed that he was “unlawfully illegally deprived of his liberty.” “ ‘In the matter of writ of habeas application made affidavit to the court corpus, Wyatt (Judge Stuart) detained, confined unlawfully that he was- imprisoned, Weber; of his Sheriff that he liberty by and restrained counsel, had been and was advised H. Riddell Easley, W. that his George imprisonment, detention and * * * illegal.’ confinement was People Cooper T., [Sept. 342 Request. ‘Their Modest “ ‘ Wyatt’s attor- After forth the setting allegations, to the for a writ of habeas directed neys corpus, asked him be- Wyatt to have the sheriff, body commanding what fore the court to do and receive should (Stuart), him, then be considered concerning proper detention, the time cause of his together that he be restored to his read the liberty. Judge Stuart after 10 is- petition, shortly Thursday night o’clock writ, gave Wyatt liberty sued which his following on bail until the case could be heard: “‘ To the habeas cor- Cleric Let a writ of Sheriff: foregoing issue returnable pus petition, court- 12, 1889, M., at o’clock A. at the Friday, July In house Denver. the meantime the prisoner may admitted to bail be bonds sum upon giving penal $1,000, conditioned prisoner, Wyatt, John J. at shall the hour above and abide appear mentioned order said bond to be approved by sheriff.’

“ ‘In Stuart’s Court. ‘‘‘ When the above order was secured Thursday night was released until 10 o’clock Wyatt acting sheriff when the writ morning, was returnable. yesterday 'Wy- advisers, att and his Riddell and legal Easley, Messrs. before Stuart for a of the ha- appeared Judge hearing beas corpus case is to such proceedings. growing dimensions that F. Vaile, J. member gigantic junior the law firm of Vaile, Wolcott & for which concern Mr. is hired do Easley work, has also dirty gone into the case. He was at the time. The present prose- cution was not aware of the when it up did, case coming it. Assistant District prepared argue Attorney Abbott told that he wanted to Judge Stuart heard the matter and would have it. The to postpone rel. ex v. snap would be no judgment there court that replied until 10 hearing the postponed the case. Then was the Judge In meantime Stu- Monday morning. o’clock out on bail. The bond is in be Wyatt art permitted H. and William $1,000, George of Graham sum it Yaile are on as sureties. “ and authorities is ‘Among lawyers Judge Stuart criticism for to be allowing Wyatt severe out receiving a a for habeas is bail, proceeding on corpus requiring from before the that jail to take his prisoner sheriff (the show he jury and then cause to the it, why issues of prisoner liberty. This was sheriff) deprives such his case, rule in the he not not was taken Wyatt had from as he been liberated bond.’ already jail, — Authority’ Johnny.’ “‘Without ‘Back to Jail, with alleged the above head-lines interviews [Under of the denunciatory all published, persons various premises.] Judge of action Stuart Outrage. “‘A Judicial dug B. of his Stuart the district court Thomas ‘Judge he wide and when writ deep both issued grave official of liberation Thursday night habeas corpus of of Arap- from the jail of State Secretary Wyatt Deputy do this authority had more He no county. legal ahoe of habeas corpus have had to a Avrit would issue than he the jail from liberation Cronin murderers for the he not But was satisfied county, of Cook Illinois. further, he directed writ; went issuing taken, should be $1,000 sum penal bail bond of Arapahoe county. sheriff subject approval a writ of habeas morning, we showed yesterday “‘As in a case cannot obtained corpus properly Civil Procedure Section Code Colorado. of the court “The and orders as follows: judgment reads T., [Sept. judge, made cases shall be final and contempt, conclusive. The shall be punishment by fine impris- onment, no fine shall exceed the sum $5,000.”

‘“If Stuart did know Judge not existence of this statutory provision, charitable to only pre- sume that he did he not, properly informed re- garding his duties, he should not powers acted in ignorance. If he did know its he existence showed he very conclusively wholly unfit for a ** * place on the bench. “ ‘Aside from the purely legal case, aspect Judge Stuart has himself open left to the con- severest demnation for Why his course. should he have acted on a that night case well have might waited until morning. Mr. was not Wyatt suffering very seriously in jail. He was favored with the parlor ward” in the jail the through partiality the of gang-ruled sheriff’s office, there could have been no injustice in letting him the he had pay penalty incurred his justly out- rageous the refusal to let grand jury how much see of the state’s furniture had been stolen from the assembly building. ‘Ho wonder the faith in lose the people administration .of justice can be judges when courts found ready to stretch their until it cracks to authority efforts shield culprits from deserved Ho punishment. wonder the natural sense of often justice of men tempts them to take the law into their own hands for of punishment crim- when inals, convinces them that observation the courts cannot depended to insure the administration justice. Judge knew, Stuart as citizen every state that knew, Wyatt Mr. was sent to properly by Judge jail for a most flagrant Stone case of his know the Civil business to that Code abso- forbade his if lutely case, interference even his own sense was not sufficient to judicial propriety keep Cooper v. 31-5 him from Nor to hope can he meddling. escape suspicion political pull gang the supposed which such a member had Johnny Wyatt prominent Wolcott, writ. Senator some this weight procuring gang all the other members Graham and George to prevent are and have like beavers working been the defendant for his infliction of any punishment in their unanimous offense, while the people equally or un- done. Whether wittingly desire to see justice him- to appears arrayed wittingly, Judge Stuart matter. with the against people self gang “ ‘ He afford duty has a to cannot perform. Stone Judge ac- summary and he take rest, to let this should matter Mr. send tion to the extent his fullest District Ste- Attorney this morning. back Wyatt jail soon move, that he should evening vens declared last return to-day, court convenes as the criminal if he the cour- and we shall see has the culprit prison, the gang. spite duty to do his whole age “ ‘ from at a late jail was liberated Wyatt When Johnny gave he understand press night, hour Thursday This had let him out. was not Stone Judge about the deliv- knew nothing jail Judge case. Stone he read of it in the Stuart till Judge effected by ery he justly is incensed at morning, yesterday papers and unlawful unwarranted action. There Stuart’s Judge of court if judges be no punishment can each assume reverse other’s action equal let Stone show court Judge cases. Now that his in such in this outrageous way. be trifled with Contempt cannot offense, judges should be careful serious it.’ to provoke thereafter, that on Sunday, further states “Affiant the Denver 1889, the said Repub- day July, 11th other articles comments re- certain contained lican as follows, to wit: same being lating said Cooper v. [Sept. T., “ Wyatt in Jail? ‘Was - Never Locked Deputy Stubborn “ ‘ Belief Authority —Excellent the Statement Up — His Freed a Free Man Judge Laboriously Stuart Honor a Committee to Ascertain whether Appoints his Action was Foolish or Not Stone Judge Urged — the Indignity to Resent Him.’ Heaped upon article, follows a lengthy severely censuring [Then Judge Stuart’s action case, which Wyatt omit- ted.] “ ‘ Nothing Yesterday. Done ‘ Judge Stone and the District Attorney Leave Johnny

Alone. “ ‘Johnny Wyatt was not sent to jail yesterday, as anticipated. district did not attorney issue a war- rant for commitment as he said he would. Wyatt now at law with laughs impunity. Friday night the district attorney stated that Judge Stuart had exceeded his ju- risdiction by permitting any held prisoner for contempt out on bail. As" the court acted without authority, claimed the Wyatt, prosecution, had no legal right anywhere except bastile. county With this view, which is supported bar generally, the district at- decided that he torney would issue another warrant of commitment for Wyatt yesterday morning. He didn’t do it when the came around.’ morning

“‘Judge Happy. Stuart Not “ ‘When Judge Stuart perused Republican yester- he was day morning evidently much put out, for the first he did at the thing convocation of court was to issue an order appointing Joel F. Vaile and Lafe two at- Pence, as a torneys, committee to examine into the matters * * * relative to the made charges him. If against the Republican guilty was of contempt yesterday morn- People ex 'rel. 34J this for we not morning, in it is still more ing, we already word said back a do take only n all with it emphasis. Judge matter, repeat this he let when outrage Wyatt a gross committed Stuart nor excuse authority had neither bail, and he out on His case at all. this interfering kind for a creditable Liddell, refused Judge posi- Allen and associates, Judge did Wyatt writ, attorneys to issue the tively Decker all. near at Judge -to go not deem it advisable by people, well understood This is question pretty of all the he may get wish Judge joy good and we Stuart to investigate out of his a commission appointment either himself or Republican.’

“And the following affiant statement says contained, to wit: His associates, article ‘ said last-named Liddell, refused to issue positively Allen and Judge Judge had con- judges said writ,’ falsely implied or the writ should should whether sidered question it, when in fact refused thereupon not be and had issued, never been submitted to affiant had petition of of said judges. considered either 14th July newspaper That said morning said upon illustration, intended also contained a certain cartoon to this affiant, cause and to said apply understood the same as this being and to one judges inserted a large this cartoon follows, to wit: point [At 1889, 14, of July taken from the Denver Republican n — n War ‘ The which, head-lines, Tug under the contest pict- against rope-pulling Gang,’ ured, with as the contention. Citizens Wyatt object side at a represented tugging rope are the one him into Wyatt’s body, purpose pulling around while Stuart others other, Judge jail, him the represented opposite as pulling direction.] affiant, belief, “And alleges information that one Nathaniel P. as the and the Hill, president Cooper People [Sept. T., v. ex rel.

owner of the stock of the majority Repub- the capital lican and Publishing one G-. as Company, Kemp Cooper, the of said and William newspaper, manager Staple- one ton, thereof, as the editor are each and all responsible for the several and publication articles, said have per- mitted, authorized, inserted and caused publication' thereof, and that said said several newspapers containing articles under and were, procurement cognizance Hill, the said Nathaniel P. and Cooper G. William Kemp and Stapleton, generally circulated extensively Denver, and city throughout Colorado, state the dates of their as above set That publication forth. and so articles cartoons reflect published said and faith of this and were integrity good court, designed, hold public intended and calculated to toup opprobrium thereof. That effect of said judges one was and prejudice with re- publications public to the merits of a cause now for a spect hearing pending undetermined, this and yet and that the same justice. tend to the administration of That corrupt said accuse the affiant of publications swearing re- falsely cause, to said gard and are calculated to a fair prevent trial determination same.

And affiant he is says advised by counsel authorizing permitting, making of said publica- out, tion as hereinbefore set the said Nathaniel P. Hill, William Kemp G. Cooper Stapleton have been guilty gross of this court. And contempt upon the facts here affiant that an order be presented asks made Hill, said P. court Nathaniel requiring Kemp G. Cooper William Stapleton appear this court aat time stated, in said order to be if cause, show they should can, why punished for they contempt.” an order (Here respondents follows to show cause not be why they should punished publications.) said op Respondents.

Answer — op In the ss. Colorado, County Arapahoe “State Arapahoe. county and for said district “ J. rel. John ex the State Colorado People of of Hill, C. Kemp P. vs. Nathaniel Wyatt, Plaintiffs, and William

Cooper Stapleton, Defendants. Hill, Kemp Nathaniel P. G-. “The said respondents, William to represent and Stapleton, and come hereto- an order this court that of having, this court 1889, A. D. been re- day on the 15th of fore, July, and T. B. one Stuart, the Honorable before appear quired Wednesday, day 17th court, of said on judges of the 1889, M., hour 10 o’clock A. and A. D. at the of July, they have, and there if show.cause, any why then each shall be for con- punished and of them not they is of .which order hereunto court, copy of said a tempt That from the annexed, these said respondents say: served, order, and an therewith purporting affidavit and Wyatt placed have been subscribed John J. court, contempt

file of that the alleged it appears articles the Den- consists publication certain days July, ver the 13th and 11th last Republican on against aforesaid, respondents protest the said mentioned, jurisdic- rule order above said affi- or said proceed this court to commit tion of any of the of court said contempt against davit affidavit, in the said matters stated respondents any there- discharged they may respectfully pray following from, grounds: and in allege support thereof therein not, complained That the acts “First. a of said district court. them, contempt either nor is court cannot legally That'the district said “Second. in a newspaper, made publication for contempt punish of the immediate court. presence done and not court, out of publications any That such “Third. any officers, any or of of its or of

relation to Oooper [Sept. T., cause pending therein, cannot into be.legally construed of court in law, and the cannot publisher legally be punished therefor. That Fourth. these respondents admit Den- that the ver Republican published by au- corporation legally thorized do under business laws the state Colorado. These respondents aver that the said Nathan-

“Fifth. iel Hill P. president of said corporation, that the said Nathaniel P. Hill neither authorized incited, or caused the publication of said nor articles, any them, and aver that the first knowledge that the said Nathaniel P. Hill had of articles, said any them, was reading same said after papers the same had been published; deny articles, said or the said cartoon, or either of them, reflect integ- and rity faith of good court; said and aver that they were devised, not intended to hold or calculated to up public or opprobrium any one of the of said judges court; that the effect deny of said or of any publications, them, was or is to prejudicial the merits of then any cause pending before to court, said or in prejudice public regard or thereto, same, that the or of them, were any ¡ intended to obstruct the administration of justice.

“Sixth. respondents These aver that have they not, nor of has any them, been guilty disorderly, of contempt- uous or insolent behavior in the of said court or presence chambers, in or towards referee or tend- any arbitrator, to ing interrupt the course or arbi- trial, of reference or tration other aver that have proceeding. They they not been guilty of disobedience to lawful any writ, order, rule process or or any issued said court, judge thereof, in or otherwise; chambers that not they have been guilty of disobedience of any subpoena or manner re- any fused to obey any order of the court or of any judge thereof; that said respondents nor either of them have any person rescued or property the custody any of of court, of or any process virtue of said officer, by of been or either them thereof, they have nor conduct, or of peace a breach of the boisterous of guilty violent, court, of the or presence or of disturbance the course vicinity, tending interrupt in its immediate and that have not judicial they of a trial or proceeding, the due conduct calculated retard any been guilty n justice. administration further answering And these respondents “Seventh. any a fair of said articles, that construction say any an imputation will not warrant inference them, of said faith integrity and against good or charge and that nor any judges thereof, they either of them were so designed. And said further and respondents say insist

“Eighth. as man editors, had and they right, still ci’iticise, examine, said publishers paper, agers newspaper or condemn said publicly comment gov of the every department proceedings an}r not state, responsible they of this ernment nor for the motives publications, truth for the such made by summary process or are were which they the constitution that under contempt;'and to the citizen free which Colorado, guaranties state publish write and what right dom of speech subject, respondents, being will on these he ever affidavit, said matters any of the moved charged forth, with the are therein stated set the same if due administration of advancing possible purpose controversy, published in in of the laws matters And respond these might. as they lawfully said articles intended said by no disrespect that ents further say that thereof, or judge any articles said an inference will not warrant fair construction thereof and pub were written effect; that the same motives aforesaid, lished with just, proper legal already performed.” of a concerning judge an act Cooper y. People [Sept. T., The matter was by thereafter heard the court upon affidavit foregoing and answer. This hearing resulted Hill, of the discharge defendant but the defendants error, Stapleton, were plaintiffs adjudged of contempt of court and guilty sentenced to pay a fine each therefor. To $300 review the judgment of the district court plaintiffs in error bring the be- proceeding writ fore this of error.

Mr. L. B. Frange, for plaintiffs in error.

The Attorney-General, H. Riddell Mr. and Messrs. Wolcott Vaile, & for defendants error. Hayt

Mr. Justice delivered opinion of the court. The sentence being contempt, our review right to the action the court below is challenged consequence provision of the following the statute: “The judg- ment and orders of the court judge or made in cases of shall final contempt be 360, conclusive.” Sec. Civil ” 1883. Code While we cannot place such construction upon the of the act language as would render the statute mean- ingless, would, on the contrary, to suppose absurd order every made a court cases of would be contempt beyond review and binding, whether the court had jurisdiction or whether it had not. A brief review of the law as it was to the prior adoption will provision aid in determining us its meaning. shall know,” “We never said Lord “the Coke, true rea- of the son if interpretation statutes, we know not what the law was before the making them.”

At common law judgments of superior courts of rec- ord matters of final, were and not revisable other court writ appeal error; but upon habeas corpus the defendant was entitled to be discharged, if in commitment under sentence absolutely void Ooopee People 353 ex eel. v. same, court rendering of jurisdiction want statute, it has been the absence country, lii to a lie writ error would or no appeal decided held that the it has been but for contempt; judgment case be resorted might remedy prohibition and also that jurisdiction, to exceed its about was without jurisdiction, rendered in contempt, a judgment defendant or, if the certiorari; be set aside might be dis he might such judgment, in custody upon in some And statute habeas upon, corpus. charged writ of by appeal the additional remedies states of the American given. tendency error have been has, limit the even however, investigation, been to courts to the only, generally to errors of law upon appeal, 149. Thus Contempt, court. jurisdiction Eap. § apd will judgments it be seen that contempt orders error, mere ordinarily may not revisable for set aside for want of of the court over the sub or defendant, over to render ject-matter, partic ular or order of. judgment complained Rap. Contempt, Reed, Ex 100 13-23; Hayne, et U. S. seq.; parte §141 Law, 2 268; New Bish. Crim. App. 98-198; Trials & § §§ Burton, Vilas Vt. 24 N. Y. 56; Kelly, 74; v. 27 v. Adams, 883; Ex v. Welch, Miss. parte Phillips 158; Nev. 5 Cold. Galloway, State 337. hi the

Bishop, section.cited “It is not supra, says: within the of this volume to discuss plan questions be, that the nature of practice; ye£ may very observed the court which it is com- contempt compels against and, mitted to if the proceed it, juris- court has against diction, or tribunal from precludes any superior other it, appeal of whether taking cognizance directly however, law, otherwise. Under peculiar provisions modern states, opin- some of the and the pressure fully, in a cor- ions, measure, courts do superior rect errors of the in this matter.” inferior ones

In “The English Vilas v. it is Burton, supra, said:

Vol. XIII —23 y. Cooper People ex T., rel. [Sept. 354 held that for contempt have always proceedings courts of the sub- jurisdiction in one where the court has in are not revisable and of the ject-matter parties, * * * are to light other court. And no cases brought court have ordi- where proceedings superior such revisable,' unless where the proceedings been held narily and to the law, give as to be against were so irregular jurisdiction.” no proper court committed a discharge party an application

Upon the supreme-court habeas upon corpus, for contempt “The ques v. said: Kelly, supra, New York People the. committed really whether the offender alleged tion the order will determined conclusively act be charged acts, with court; equivocal the so judgment or the cir according innocent be may culpable which innocent or necessarily the act is but cumstances; where hold it a cause of would be preposterous justifiable, imprisonment.” held that the re it was Welch, v. supra,

In Phillips jurisdiction, to the be limited question view must in char jurisdictional fact not of law or no error that harmony and this is considered; could be acter In a few cases California. of decisions the current allowed have been from contempt judgments appeals has been the inquiry even state, upon appeal but of the court the jurisdiction to the question confined may While decisions be found judgment. entering beyond ques extension of review sanctioning been usually decisions have such jurisdiction, tion of exten authorizing statutory provisions based is that the from the authorities conclusion our sion; and to the mode of no reference has provision quoted code otherwise, error but that writ of review, whether by limitation the authority be construed as it must in to extend its contempt proceedings court of the court of the jurisdiction beyond question quiry parte Ex App., supra; New & Hayne, Trials below. y. 355 Perkins, 18 Cal. v. 60; People O'Neil, 109; Roe Cal. Superior Court, Cal. 93.

When an affidavit presented as the a pro basis ceeding contempt, court in must, the first examine stance, same, and if the facts do presented not show that committed, has been will be without if proceed; facts sufficient, the court take may and its jurisdiction, will not orders be- mere error. subsequent reviewed for We are not to understood, however, saying court, after once acquiring not so far jurisdiction, might from the depart forms in prescribed the subse bylaw quent proceedings to exceed jurisdiction, its and thus .as its vitiate judgment. The practice up for bringing - the consideration of court this proceedings contempt writ error from the final been followed judgment has many years, we are not now consider disposed favorably objections In thereto. some instances the facts necessary of the to en court, information able it to determine the in refer question jurisdiction ence to a particular cause, do not appear record upon and in proper, such cases the writ of error is peculiarly Aside from appropriate. given this there is no authority this court statute to a bond a deter require pending certiorari, mination of cases while upon to enable the to sue out a writ he defendant of habeas must be corpus in at the actually custody time. remedy by writ of error, however, we it, as been has found ample meet all it cases, as furnishes when either remedy of. might the other writs have been resorted to. These are in additional reasons favor of this mode review, as this state no will lie from appeal judgments contempt But the cases.. review the writ cannot be extended than an further into inquiry of the lower v. District 6 Court, 534; court. Colo. Teller People v. 451; 7 Colo. People, People 109; v. 47 Cal. Ro O'Neil, meyn v. 17 Mich. 455. Caplis, T. [Sept. law, under hold justified, court

Was the district which affidavit, forth the acts set ing in present were founded contempt proceedings of court? stance, to constitute a Con- contempt sufficient direct, e., i. such as com , are of two tempts kind s of the court immediate view and presence mitted or, are now they at as chambers; consequential, judge e., i. as are termed, constructive such usually contempts, committed outside of the view and of the court presence at chambers.

The acts here complained belong to the latter class, if to either. They consist in a publication news paper, general circulation in the where the place held, of such being articles reference to a cause were calculated to pending as interfere with the due ad justice, ministration of is said. It is admitted that hy common law such acts were held to constitute a court; respondents challenge-the author ity court, under constitution and statutes, our punish as for a contempt any publication not made in the presence of whatever be the language used. In support of position the following cases are cited: Stuart v. People, 406; Scam. 405, People v. Wilson, 64 Ill. 208; Galland v. 44 Galland, 478; Cal. State v. Dun ham, 6 Iowa, Ex 245; 4 parte Hickey, Smedes & M. 751; v. Storey 79 People, Ill. 50.

The four first of these cases are cited for the purpose only showing statutes such as ours must be treated as a limitation upon -the common-law powers of the court in matters of And contempt. while the opin- ions are from courts of authority eminent learning, the doctrine announced is not only contrary to the weight of authority, but the question is stare decisis with us. In the case of Hughes v. People, 445, Colo. it was ex- decided pressly that the statute of this state was not a limitation power of the courts to punish for in contempts. This accordance with a long line of ad- v. cases, and. juclicated we see no reason to the con change clusion then reached. decision in The Case Hughes is commented and followed in the recent case of Frew, v. 24 W. 416, State Va. where the authorities collated and reviewed.

While the in this legislature state or di- may increase number of minish the judicial districts, the district court itself is and its jurisdiction created fixed the constitu- tion. letter of that it is By express given instrument causes, of all both at law and in “original 6, The of the 11, authority Art. Const. leg- equity.” § of the away islative to take department government inherent of such a court to power punish for contempts 505, in Ex Robinson, was doubted 19 Wall. parte denied v. expressly following Morrill, cases: State 16 Ark. Frew, State v. 403; supra. subject over the legislature not, power

however, here as we can find question, nothing which statutes can be considered an attempt take away such from authority the district of this courts state.

The other two cases cited counsel for respondents, viz., Ex parte Hickey and Storey deny the au- People, thority of the courts to punish as for a waiters or publishers newspapers responsible arti- cles appearing columns such on papers, account of the constitutional provision- their respective states 'the freedom guarantying of speech and of the press. Hence, it is argued this case that the judgment court below is to both the contrary and letter spirit 10, 2, section article of our state constitution: That no law shall be passed freedom impairing speech; that every shall be person speak, free write or publish will whatever he subject, responsible being all abuse of that liberty; and that in all and prose- suits cutions for libel the truth thereof may evi- given dence, and the jury, under direction of the court, shall determine the law and the fact.” y. [Sept. T., con alleged of Ex parte Hickey, supra,

In the case of a newspaper certain consisted tempt publication court for ad of that judge article severely censuring with murder to bail. It a defendant mitting charged- fully although was reference to an act performed, trial had of the defendant indictment yet been called. been sentenced publisher, having for a contempt jail, and committed to obtained a writ of habeas from one of the of the corpus judges court. The supreme petitioner judge, discharging from used constitution custody, this language: “Our has every may speak, declared citizen write freely his on all publish sentiments subjects, being respon sible for the 1, abuse of that Art. 6. The liberty.’ § reflections of the circuit petitioner upon Warren county, as set forth the petition complained of, when judged assumptions of the practice and some English of the American courts, constitute an undoubted contempt character; an aggravated when passed through the crucible our state constitu tion, instead of a of court, become mere they libel on the to functionary, subject 'the only punish ment law prescribed by the latter offense.”

This the opinion single judge. Afterwards, however, in another state, case in the same the supreme court upon appeal held: “The right con- punishing tempts by summary conviction is a necessary attribute of judicial power, -inherent in all courts of from justice very nature of their organization, to essential their existence and and to the protection, due administration of is a justice. It trust given the courts, not for them but for the selves, whose people, laws they enforce and whose authority they exercise; and each court has the power for itself finally adjudicate and con- punish tempts without from interference any other. The right punish extends not contempts only acts which directly and openly insult or resist powers v. and of but to indirect judges, the persons or the and the process which obstruct contempts, constructive Will v. the court.” Watson authority the of degrade iams, 36 Miss. 331. the language Storey People, supra, case

In the of in to of the grand jury of was reference acts complained declared opin- as was fully completed, expressly as ion of the court: understand the articles “We.do to embarrass ob- having tendency directly impede, its duties grand jury struct the the discharge any after were to be remaining discharged publications is made to matter which made. No allusion and act, were thereafter to there could the members no to interfere with necessity, attempt be therefore, free and as to judgments exercise of their unbiased matters.” such said, in however, constitu- speaking have in this the one we state:

tional to similar provision is, cannot be plain explicit This language, those whom courts, by to application held to no elective, and the are conducted. The judiciary they are, appointed by although appointed, general, jurors, vote. whose members elected popular a board responsibility, theory, therefore same There is in judicial that exists department legislative for the departments diligent to people, executive it; and the of all duties discharge enjoined faithful for- information with necessity regard exists public same to intrusted dis- conduct and character those to the in order that the elective franchise duties, those charge to the exercised, as obtains regard be intelligibly shall When it is con- departments government. other .of constitution this clause guaranty ceded to in regard published judi- to words spoken'or extends to character, it would seem necessarily cial conduct make a has the de- right that the defendant follow jury, tried only properly which can fense Cooper y. People T., [Sept. ex rel.- which of a court, the judge if he especially is himself subject the publication, is unfitted try.”

Prior to and at the time the adoption of these con stitutional provisions, courts had at law common the un doubted authority punish summarily, without a trial both by jury, constructive and direct And contempts. it is difficult to see how the provisions reference jury trials suits and prosecutions for can so libel construed as to either extend right to contempt pro or to ceedings, the support argument as trials that, jury are not allowed in matters of the qontempt, therefore constitution takes the away power to as for a punish for contempt matters spoken, written or published be the yond immediate view or of presence the al though no barrier presenting to summary punishment for direct No contempts. court has ever held yet that the of trial right by jury extends to contempt proceed and to ings, thus decide would defeat the of very object the power. So to hold would place the of a power vicious to person so conduct himself as to prevent any kind of a trial. As we have seen, the to power punish summarily for is contempts essential to the very exist ence of courts. Cooley, Const. Lim. p. note 390, 3. And if the our framers of constitution desired either to take away power abridge such its we exercise, have no doubt that such intention would been expressed that could not have been misunderstood. language Sim freedom of provisions ilar reference to constitutional in almost state the every and of the exist of speech press we know of other where the Union, and no state reached last arrived at a result similar to that resort has v. Storey court of Illinois the case supreme of the hand, several supra. On other People, reached, and the different has been conclusion states as summarily, for punish courts to authority in reference articles parties publishing contempt, corrupt tend to when publications such pending, causes Cooper y. People has been ex justice, administration or embarrass the the existence of such notwithstanding pressly upheld, Myers Morrill, v. supra; State provisions. constitutional v. Frew, State Stu State, Rep. 43; supra; v. N. E. In 428; Law, 2 Bish. 259. Case, 18 N. H. Crim. roc’s § “The Morrill, court said: counsel supra, State of the courts power for defense supposed libels publications punish section was cut off the seventh their proceedings which is in these words: ‘That print of rights, the bill and no law shall every person, be free shall ing presses free thereof. The rights made to restrain ever be one of the thoughts opinions communication citizen may freely man, every invaluable rights responsible print subject, being write speak, of that The last clause liberty.’ the abuse sec fdr the abuse responsible liberty,’ tion, ‘being of the learned argument an answer to counsel. the bench and bar

It is a well known fact that in all been, this and other countries where the law profession, existed as a the ablest and most has distinct institutions, zealous advocates of liberal the freedom of conscience, liberty and the of the and none have press; the encroachments of watchfully more guarded power hand, on one more deprecated earnestly the tenden- to and on the anarchy cies lawless other. licentiousness freedom of the has fear press, therefore, nothing The to in from the bench this No has been attempt state. ever 'in-, and we venture to never will made, say to may be, with on terfere its the of the legitimate province part the the exercise of to con- judiciary by power punish in object The of the clause the bill of tempts. rights to every above is known well-informed man. Al- quoted free in the now almost as as it though press England was, time in bygone ages, the country, yet in the the to power crown possessed when the ministers when it and hush its voice deemed hand lay upon their [Sept. T., v. . A to subserve similar clause necessary political purposes. been in all the has inserted American constitutions the the trammels press against political power, guard and free secure to the whole full discussion people and f affairs.” public we have able find

The latest decision that been is from the court of subject supreme the the state State, the case of The supra Myers (1889). Ohio were in some respects facts the case similar to those error, the case bar. Myers, at a news- plaintiff been indicted paper correspondent, having by grand the and caused to jury,-wrote published Cincinnati daily paper, having circulation the general place where the held, court was and while the being case was an article the pending, grand still charging jury the indictment was called the finding by judge presiding “for a and “never special partisan purpose,” honestly box;” from the drawn that the grand jury packed clerk, the presiding judge, co-operating had writer been this method indicted “by rascally methods;” infamous court said: “ The article was a libel presiding judge, that alone did not form the basis of information. The intention of the intimi- was to insult and publication date the judge, degrade court, destroy its power influence, and thus bring it into to inflame contempt; prejudices it; to people against lead them to believe that the trial then being conducted awas farce a,n outrage, which had its foundation in fraud and wrong part and other officers court, and, if communicated to the jury, prejudice their minds and thus a fair and prevent impartial trial. Besides, the was, when read the to- tendency judge, irritation, produce and, to a or less greater extent, render him less of capable exercising clear and impartial judg- ment. It therefore tended the ad- directly obstruct justice of ministration reference to the trial, case on Ooopee y. ex eel. The fact coiirt. contempt was and its publication was opinion a professional before its that, publication, does contempt, the would not be a publication given defamatory character of the the essential change its relieve the respondent responsibility nor article, and dissemination.” origin the were supra (1884), Frew, defendants

In State for a court the publication punished the a libel court judges; publication made where the court city supreme been having reference to a cause then sitting, pending in said court. The court, and undetermined after a care authorities, of the “In analysis ful review said: the publication case is a con aspect clearly every this court. Oan such a publication palliated tempt Par be it from us to take excused? away liberty inor to interfere slightest degree of the press, The good society its de rights. government the largest mands that should be liberty accorded the and an which is press, power engine great good; will not for a moment press itself tolerate such licen exhibited in tiousness as is said editorial. press interested of the purity courts, and, it had if no for the respect judges on the bench, it should respect court; for when the judges now on the bench shall be only remembered the decisions they rendered the court will still It remain. never dies. It is the peo court; ple’s and the press, as the of the champion people’s lights, interested in due to preserving respect court.”

At the time these decisions were rendered both Ohio and West had Virginia constitutional provisions similar to the provision Colorado constitution quoted, case it Ohio does not that the appear provision was ever considered or counsel as forming any barrier to the punishment as for a while in contempt, the West Virginia case was expressly determined that Cooper People [Sept. T., v. ex rel. conviction, and were in accordance punishment

the constitution of that Judge Cooley, state. speak- ing of these constitutional provisions, says: We under- stand liberty speech press not imply only liberty publish, complete from immunity legal censure for the punishment publication, so as long it is harmful character, its when tested by such as the law standards For affords. these we standards must look to the common-law rules which were enforced when the constitutional established, were guaranties in reference to which they have been adopted.” Cooley, Lim. ’”'422. Const. an Turning Blackstone as authority as to what acts constituted constructive at contempt those, law, common we find among enumerated fol- “By lowing: speaking writing contemptuously court or judges," their acting judicial capacity; by false printing (or accounts even true ones without proper of causes then permission) depending judgment; and in short, that by anything, demonstrates a want gross of that regard respect which, when once courts of, their justice deprived authority (so for necessary order of the good kingdom) entirely lost among 4 Bl. Comm. *285. people.” We quote this from Blackstone paragraph for only the extent purpose, showing to which the summary may be punishment contempt extended in- without fringing upon constitutional guaranties of freedom speech and of the press as defined by Judge Cooley; but must not for this reason understood we claim the power courts as for punish contempts indefinitely is now as broad stated by Blackstone. However, upon we principle authority, must hold that at common law courts of superior record inherent power summarily to convict and punish as for court those responsible articles pub- lished reference to a cause when pending, such articles are calculated to interfere with the due administration nor of this state and that neither statutes justice; the. any barrier quoted present provisions the constitutional the district courts of such powers by the exercise to in inherent those power but that such is state, courts. in the in forth affidavit the case articles set

In the based, it is proceedings charged contempt which to a swore “Johnny Wyatt, gauzy petitioner, that the in the writ of of the court issuing The judge fiction.” and tool,” charged to “the is referred habeas corpus of to precedent keep precious outside legal with stepping in for or three and various days;” of two out Johnny jail article as “Back phrases the same such subdivisions are made etc., “A jail, Johnny,” judicial outrage,” to is with political and threatened judge conspicuous, him act taken preliminary judicial punishment Thomas B. cause, “Judge in this Stu- language: both wide his official dug grave art of the district he a writ of habeas corpus when issued deep Deputy Secretary for the liberation of night Thursday it county.” from the And Wyatt jail Arapahoe State can he hope escape is also said: “Nor suspicion of which political pull supposed gang, member, such had Deputy Wyatt prominent is some ” writ. And a made this demand is procuring weight “take criminal court to sum- Judge Stone extent of his to the fullest action mary back to Wyatt jail.” send Mri “If 14th the July following appears:

In the issue of yesterday morn- contempt was guilty the Republican for we this not morning, is still more ing, it word we have said in only already do take back a this with matter, emphasis. Judge all Stuart repeat let when he out on outrage Wyatt committed gross he had nor excuse a cred- bail, authority neither at It fur- kind for the case all.” interfering itable associates, “Judge Allen charged Judge ther Stuart’s People ex rel. [Sept. T., writ,” Liddell, refused Judge positively issue is set falsity charge Wyatt’s petition, which forth nd no issue taken in their respondents thereon by a answer. And not objectionable less than these articles — is the “The cartoon entitled War The Tug against Gang.”

There can be no doubt that the of the articles tendency and cartoon exhibited affidavit, responsibility which plaintiffs error answer, admit their was to prejudice public as to the of a then merits cause pending undisposed of; degrade the court and before whom the same im- and to pending; pede, 'embarrass defeat the justice administration in reference thereto. In these articles the petitioner, Wyatt, charged perjury; grave reflections are cast upon the court and upon thereof, and the judge whole tendency the language employed was to inflame mind popular against both the petitioner and the for the judge, evident purpose of coercing the latter into the former sending “back jail.” to a have Parties constitutional right to have their causes tried in fairly court, by an impartial tribunal, uninflu- enced by newspaper dictation or clamor. popular- What would become of this if right the press may use language in reference to pending cause calculated to intimidate unduly or influence and judicial control action? Days, and sometimes weeks, spent the endeavor secure to an impartial jury case; for the trial of a and, when se- lected, it is incumbent to exercise the utmost care in excluding evidence of matters foreign to the issues involved, so that the jurors minds of the may not perchance be biased unduly or prejudiced refer- either to ence or to litigants the matters upon trial. if editor, But an a litigant, or those sympathy him, should be permitted, the medium of through or press, by promises threats, invective, or de- sarcasm to nunciation, influence the result of trial, all the ex eel. well the pre- the selection of the jury, taken as as care trial solely to confine their attention at the used caution in vain. involved, will been expended issues to the contraction would not for moment sanction "We has freedom of Universal press. experience that such freedom'is to the necessary shown perpetuation in its but this system government integrity; of our aBy does not license unrestrained scandal. freedom con of our clause of the same sentence state subsequent in which the liberty guarantied, responsi stitution abuse is fixed. With the judiciary for its us bility and freely citizen discuss elective, every may fully of all for the positions the fitness unfitness candidates ren which criticise all decisions they’ aspire; freely their sound dered, by legitimate argument establish infidelity on the unsoundness; fidelity ness or comment duties,— their judicial discharge with which officers defamation, prejudice wanton attempt, by right cause, degrade litigants pending. the rights ad that due embarrass or tribunal, impede, corrupt to good gov which is so essential justice ministration Law ernment, (7th cannot be sanctioned. Bish. Crim. 259. ed.), § respondents It said argument was counsel law every regarded the common of the sovereign,

the direct representative was based.” punish the power fiction have for the crown. been substituted us the people With and are dependent are created the people, The courts of the powers will for a continuation the popular upon courts, contemptuous are the people’s They granted. offi- in of their discharge the towards the judges conduct- the due administration to defeat tending duties, cial the the an against person more than offense justice, is the the people’s an offense against is judge,— will- however judge protect, which the should dignity injury. to the forego private he be may ing [Sept. T., ex-eel. It has been in that urged argument Judge Stuart had no in jurisdiction the habeas corpus proceedings to re- Wyatt lease from under arrest the warrant of commit- ment from the criminal court. We deem it sufficient for the present say that, the in proceedings the habeas corpus case not been amade having part of record, this we have no means of except determining, pre- by legal sumption, question jurisdiction. such The record before us does not disclose for what Wyatt offense had been imprisoned by the criminal court; we hence express no opinion upon the action of Stuart in the Judge prem- By statute, ises. the district courts of this state, the judges thereof, are expressly general given jurisdic- tion in habeas cases, i. 'corpus e., power to issue the writ is and if given generally; there were facts set forth petition which upon Judge Stuart issued the writ he affirmatively had no showing jurisdiction in the case, and particular respondents desired to take advan- tage this, they should incorporated such petition record. This this has not been done.

In the absence of such showing, district issue writ judge particular case must Gen. St. presumed. 1609; People Court, v. District § Railroad v. Nicholls, 8 supra; Colo. 188. The judgment affirmed. accordingly

Affirmed. I concur the opinion of the Mr. Justice Elliott. main involved in question case, Counsel for has respondents chosen conclusion.. the defense this proceeding to rest mainly have a publishers newspapers consti- ground to assail the right integrity and impugn tutional the mo- in relation to judicial action, his tives even in and undisposed of, cases without pending being amena- therefor. proceedings ble That such a doc- trine sound reason as opposed well as the great y. People in of shown weigítt authority opinion is clearly Hayt, Mr. be con- may Justice filed herein. The idea necessarily by opinion though veyed so intended, that a district or a has judge court district habeas authority by corpus to release under prisoners judge commitment for another court by concurrent a jurisdiction. I am that such unwilling rule of should be in practice, jurispru- sanctioned our dence, inference, even if by rule, followed, as such a would lead to judicial anarchy.

It in was assumed without argument of this case fair question, by implication the record bemay said to show, that the relator was under commitment criminal court for contempt against its authority matter wherein the criminal court jurisdiction. had This repeatedly publications asserted complained of, which assertions were incorporated in the record as a part the affidavit of the relator, and are not contro- verted in any way; moreover, record this case nowhere that the crinfinal court discloses had acted with- jurisdiction out the matter relator’s commitment; and hence its must premises be pre- circumstances, I am sumed. Under such of the opinion no district court could lawfully discharge from relator such commitment. Whether he could higher been relieved tribunal need not now be considered. case,

This court always, has manifested ex- treme with the delicacy interfering judgments other courts in contempt cases. It makes use of the writ of under error therefor careful restrictions.

In Hab. it Church, Corp. (page 305), said: “One not review general jurisdiction should pro- ceedings another on the writ of habeas corpus. The principles should comity prevail.” In Rap. Contempts (sec. is said: 155), The writ of habeas corpus remedy, and collateral under the well

YOL, — XIII People T., [Sept. v. 370 competent of a court a judgment rule that established can jurisdiction, within that a matter upon jurisdiction, no that, question it results not be collaterally impeached, a conviction involved, raised being of jurisdiction means reviewed by cannot be for contempt commitment of com that an order well for it is settled writ; and of a judgment, in the nature is mittal in exe thereunder is committed committed the person therefore, the court If, cution. out defendant, and of the subject-matter

person arises, he can no more get alleged contempt of which the if had than he could his committal corpus relief on habeas founded a ver of a judgment in execution been If for crime. the court ordinary dict an prosecution rule making every superior had jurisdiction, of con- the exclusive legislative body record or authority own and closes dignity its tempts against where writ cases excess except to review this door is clearly apparent.” of jurisdiction “The right punishing Hab. Hurd, Corp. says: (412) in all conviction inherent by summary for contempts to their protection essential justice, courts is a under conviction A commitment such existence. of convic execution, judgment commitment other court unless to review not subject tion is It cannot be attacked authorized statute. specially for such except gross writ of habeas corpus under void.” proceeding render defects as summary con authority, speaking the same Again, limited, to contempt not victions, though applicable, “Where a 405, person says: 404 and cases, pages he can conviction, execution under such committed acts nor under the II., under the act Car. claim, seen, discharged we have to be states, as of several however, Courts, pos a writ of habeas corpus. under writ, or jurisdiction over sessing common-law con jurisdiction is or other whom judges officers Coopee ex eel. ferrecl without limit, such in exercise of such may, com mon-law or unrestricted jurisdiction, discharge the pris from oner commitment if it fatally such and incurably defective. But we have seen, also courts are reluctant to interfere then under the writ of habeas corpus with out the conviction before having them; never they do for mere error or irregularity, they unless have the record before them form such as to enable them to expressly act conclusively upon error or such irreg ularity. “ Hence importance the writ of certiorari, hence, also, the necessity for relief from applying im- prisonment such to a which, cases court by its consti- tution and relation, possesses a corrective or revisory jurisdiction over the so conviction, that if it be erroneous bemay reversed, and then the prisoner be discharged.”

Again, Eap. Contempts, 155, still speaking of the re- § view of cases by habeas corpus, “It says: there- fore becomes clear that the question of relief or no relief, in these cases, means the writ by of habeas corpus, depends upon power of the court the writ issuing into and judge of the extent inquire limits of another court. jurisdiction Upon this subject the ad- cases, judged apparently so harmonious in their statement of the general rule, are, closer examination, per- In inconclusive. plexing cases where the court issu- the writ clothed lawby ing appellate or 'superin- jurisdiction tending over the tribunal which committed the petitioner, there seems be comparatively little dif- ficulty the adjudications.” reconciling From an examination of the adjudged I cases, am sat- isfied that simpler, safer and better rule reference to the review of contempt proceedings is, by stated author, last-named “That one court should not judge jurisdiction of another tribunal of co-ordinate authority Ex 3 dignity.” parte Watkins, 193; Pet. Ex parte Kearney, 38; Reed, 7 Wheat. Ex parte 13; 100 U. S. T.,

372 [Sept. v. Davison’s Case, 129;. Breese, 13 Abb. ark Pr. Cl v. People, 340; Gilman, Ex 2 parte Thatcher, 167; Towle, State v. 42 N. Iowa, H. v. 29 540; McDonald, Robb In re 330; 40 Bissell, 63; Mich. Shattuck v. 51 State, 50; Miss. Phil v. lips 158; 12 Welch, Nev. State Galloway, Cold. 326;. Ex parte Farnham, Colo. 545.

It our statute true terms confers general jurisdic- tion in habeas cases corpus upon district courts and dis- trict judges. Nevertheless, must, there nature of be some things, power, limitation to the exercise of such else the unseemly spectacle of one might presented district another releasing prisoners committed district or even court itself. The supreme in many criminal courts cases concur- courts; rent with the and in all -matters pertain- district to the should jurisdiction they exercise their lawful ing be upheld accordingly. had an

Respondents question undoubted right and to jurisdiction of the district court the premises, criticise the issuance writ of habeas tem corpus, they pleased; as much as perate respectful language, were' had at while the they proceedings no least right, in ridicule, make or to pending, subject therewith; faith in connection against good sinuations his not, must, for whether he had he event, jurisdiction, of such mat pass upon question —a we and in so seen,— ter of difficulty, doing some act uninfluenced fear he have been permitted should motive. unworthy his reputation or other injury Case, 26 Pa. 9. The decision case Williamson’s St. Court, 534, District is not conflict Colo. here rather in support expressed, views when the considered. them, opinion whole

Affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Cooper v. People Ex Rel. Wyatt

Court Name: Supreme Court of Colorado

Date Published: Sep 5, 1889

Citation: 22 P. 790

Docket Number: No. 2510.

Court Abbreviation: Colo.