*1 Judge. Murray, Ex Rel. v. Stanton State Indiana. v. State Stanton 28,943. 28,909, 1952.] Filed October [Nos. *3 McManamon, Attorney J. Emmett General; William T. Ready McClain and John O’Connor, Deputy Attor- neys General, appellee. for relator and for
Henry Sackett, R. Gary, respondents. of for David Stanton, P. Point, pro of Crown se. appellant herein, Relator and
Bobbitt, J. David P. Stanton, prosecuting is the attorney County, of Lake Indiana, and will hereafter appellant. be referred as
Respondent herein, Murray, judge William J. of and, convenience, the Lake Criminal Court will here- discussing after referred as when both original appeal. action and alleged were, during of are, the time Both and respective herein, re-еlection to their candidates for acts offices. ap- 28,909, original action, numbered cause 28,943, are concerned with
peal, numbered cause of matter, the same records subject involve same closely we related that- They are so the trial court. opinion. dispose them in one consolidate no in the outset that we have had It be said should appeal alleged help in from the brief filed in behalf appellee, State Indiana. April 4, appellant, prosecuting attorney, On as performance duty such, appeared and in the of his as purpose arguing Criminal Court for the Lake quash pending motion to in a certain criminal case oрening day court. At the of court on said that when attorney appeared, prosecuting the court announced days” prior to his attention that had come that “some quoted 4, 1952, extensively April was newspaper published in Lake County to the effect that prosecuting County, he, attorney of as Lake had judge cooperation from the criminal had courts, hostility existed in the a climate of “that confronting him, were that his obstructionist tactics job in had met this court been to do efforts abuse, vilification, personal sneers, ridicule, scorn, of this court [Lake the attitude n intoler- enforcement toward law Criminal Court] having judge’s system of mutual able, lawyers pro-tem back-scratching substitution *4 to constitute roadblocks pro-tem court all in this judge this and that the conduct law enforcement effective person that a indicates Criminal Court] [Lake demanded, rascals right ‘let’s kick the had who was ” out.’ judge (appellee) appellant The then asked if he was responsible appeared for said article which had 25, 1952, appel- Hammond on Times March which to replied lant that he did not intend to stand interrogated pertaining on matters other than business prosecuting attorney, to the and that he would not an- any questions pertaining other swer than those to the Appellee replied, then business before the court. then right “You have constitutional to answеr or not” to appellant replied, which the not want to “I do answer.” Appellee said, point, then “At this because I don’t know you I if should bar from room or whether I this you should cite or whether I like should be the Irishman who a mule and was kicked consider where it came from. I to intended do yesterday this but up by we were jury held any trial and before I hear you practice more cases before I let Court, in this I going am going what I am to do about decide paper. think, article in the I Court, as an officer of this you apology.” owe this Court an After some further exchange appellee of remarks between the appellant, appellant and after the had told that he had a courtroom, to leave [appellee] he then “I said: going try anything you am not [appellant] you apologize until this court.” April 7, appellant On filed in this court his veri- petition fied for writ of prohibition alleg- mandate and ing he, prosecuting therein that attorney, present, ready, willing present argument able April 4, which been set had 1952 on said motion to quash, appellee arbitrarily proceed and that refused to permit appellant in said matter or to to attend the hear- ing participate therein, alleging or to and further represent refused to allow the State pending of Indiana in matters in the Lake Criminal *5 appellant apologized until as the Court such time to by appellant allegedly for statements made concerning ap- published The Hammond Times and pellee as an individual and as a candidate for re-election Judge Court, to office of of the Lake Criminal directing praying that an alternative writ issue therein ¿ppellee to the cause of State Indiana vs. William set hearing quash permit said motion to Vinovich on hearing appellant appear to at said and allow represent of Indiana therein. the State petition an writ on issued alternative we
On Murray, commanding appellee, April J. William per- Judge Court, allow Lake Criminal as Prosecuting Attorney and appear appellant as mit Lake pending in the participate in all criminal matters Court. Criminal appellee filed April 19th his return which was
On Among things April 17th, appel- 1952. on verified other [appellant] may return that “Relator in said lee states any de- participate in the Vinovich or other case where long judge as relator demeans sits so well fendant as himself. any set time that the at case be
“The Vinovich request permit either court will calendar proceeding. party respect to the alternative writ and its command
“With presently defendant states that he is and will con- willing permit participation by relator as tinue be any pending prosecutor in as before defendant matters County, Indiana, so in the Criminal of Lake long properly only relator conducts himself in the as court.” making he is
Appellee his return that further states anything apologize appellant to to him for demand on no prosecuting recognizes may appear appellant long attorney County “so Court of Lake Criminal prosecutor as he such conducts him- remains well Appellee self.” further states
suspended practicing attempt from in said and no participation prevent his full will made to pending therein. matter April 17, 1952, day appellee’s
On the same on which *6 verified, appellant appeared return was argued motion to dis- in the Lake Criminal Court pending. there At the com- miss in a criminal action arguments stoрped by pletion appellant was attempting appellee as he was to leave the courtroom following proceedings and the were had: “In Matter of David P. No. Stanton argument “There had been set this April quash 4,1952, the defend- to the motion
ant, pending Indiana v. Vino- in the case of State vich as Cause No. herein. convening “At day of the court on that calling argument, said cause for such David Prosecuting
P. Attorney Stanton as the of this Ju- Circuit, appeared dicial and the defendant and his present. counsel were “It had come to the attention of the court that days prior Mr. extensively quoted April 4, Stanton some was press County, in Lake In- diana, to the effect that as Prosecutor he had not cooperation judge had from the court, of this that hostility court, a climate of existed in the that ob- structionist him, tactics here confronted that his job efforts to do his in this had court been met with sneers, ridicule, scorn, vilification, abuse, personal judge and that the attitude of the of this court toward law enforcement that was intolerable and judge’s system having mutual back-scratch- ing pro-tem pro- lawyers judge substitution of tem in this court all constitute roadblocks to effec- tive law enforcement and that the conduct of this person court indicates that a had who demanded ‘let’s kick the rascals out.’ purported statement and of that “In view purportedly reflected, this of Stanton attitude proper before that it was felt and believed court ascer- case to proceeding further with said Vinovich not made such had had whether Stanton tain attitude was as and what his statements ability case of Indiana in Vinovich of the State by the impartial fair consideration
to secure court, if regular presiding ton said Stan- of this those statements or had mate he regular belief, they views and reflected his intended, did not judge ask even if Stanton of this challenge himself change judge, to for a cause. open “Accordingly, calling at inquired case the court of Mr. Stanton Vinovich whether appeared Times, responsible he was for the remarks the news article in Hammond 25, 1952, on March reference stated, whereupon re- above court as Mr. Stanton plied, T here for other am not business other attorney prosecuting up than as take the business repeated court’, and when the court its before this Stanton, stated, repeat then question to he T will I not intend here to the court do to stand interrogated pertaining than the business other *7 attorney. any prosecuting I will not answer the questions before the other than the business other then I not want to answer.’' The court court. do right stated, interrogate you’, has to to ‘The court a point.’ replied, ‘Not at this which Stanton Said open of were made in court statements while Stаnton open for the the court transaction engaged They in stated and therein. were business disrespectful rude, They and insolent manner. a operation impeded the interfered with and attribut- if Stanton made the statements and press, they interfered and ed to him the also with operation impeded the of the court. accordingly that David P. “It is ordered Stanton brought hereby and ordered attached be and he is court to make such statements or show- this before ing fore- explanation, or denial of the extenuation thereto, response and going which he make Lake the sheriff of that the bailiff of this court and County, charged Indiana, attaching are with the producing said Stanton аnd him court forthwith. “Judge: any I you want to if know what answer to have make. Prosecuting Attorney “Mr. Stanton: The is now present open response here In Court. to what just read, say the I place Court at the time and will referred to as read the Court the statements Prosecuting Attorney made not in the were but a manner, they rude and insolent and vile were respectfully proper decorum, malee and at all times Prosecuting attorney the stated to the he required present knew no him remain law in the Court Room temperate the Court resorted to in- while language right and I and vile felt had a Room, to withdraw from the the Court Court right.’ Prosecuting Attorney ‘You As said have that was, County, my position Lake is the right the Cоurt has no use bench as rostrum express opinions, clamp Prose- from which to the cuting Attorney County into silence for of this concerning opinions the Room outside of the Court Judge claim as for re-election. I a candidate opinions express right Room to the Court outside of concerning any the methods and citizen as other I have all times in operations this court and at law, practicing years experience in my twenty-five I respect dignity and de- have maintained including Court, the Criminal corum all Courts and my have been remarks to Court even now manner, proper I not used respectful have ain respect for does the Court innuendos; but judgment opinion of to require аnd his man’s occupies position, temporarily Judge who Court. according opinions of the tailored be I don’t your has set forth Honor believe what direct constitutes any circumstances under minutes contempt using Court, I and believe opin- Judge clamp into silence power as a his ions integrity ability and concerning his of others Crim- operator efficiency skill Honor deny Your and I Court, inal *8 done, and I already have you judge, as summarily cause— ruling show to ato entitled am your “Judge: concerned about What I am is you purported have
alleged made were statements newspapers. say no I that Your Honor has “Mr. Stanton: rostrum, occupying right Room in the and Court right interrogate you dо, has no bench as concerning anybody kind, state- proceedings of this „not Court made outside he have ments Honor believes effecting pending any If Your causes. con- have have made out Court statements I Court indirect stituted required somebody to those state- swear to have Judges, appoint three one ; have the Court ments which I’m in on official selected. While Court will be interrogate right business, your deny I Honor’s existing concerning possible between differences me right if he made Your Honor to ask us. I have no upstairs’, Dog’, ‘That nut as ‘Mad such statements if right ask Your Honor I have ‘Mad Man.’ no the Con- you such I don’t believe made statements. give stitution, Country, Your Honor the laws of our right, give you any right, such if and it did per- advantage taking of this undue would slander. You Honor for haven’t Your son. I have sued legal liar, has no Honor Your called me a yourself wrap with upon right bench to sit robes, yourself the Club judicial clothe silence, bludgeon Court, me into Contempt of when you me liar. call “Judge: duty protect this Court. I have yourself. protecting are You “Mr. Stanton: Court, want to “Judge: protecting this I am newspaper those say about you what have to know articles. deny I the Court’s to inter- “Mr. Stanton: open concerning rogate the statements me relating capa- to the made outside of Court Court’s public for re-election as a candidate bilities office. go?
“Judge: you as far as want to That’s go. want to That’s as far as I “Mr. Stanton: fully being duly ad- “Judge: now The Court thereupon P. finds David premises vised *9 guilty contempt Court, Stanton of a direct of this punishment and fixes his $300.00, at a fine of to- gether with County commitment Jail for a period days. of three thereupon “It ordered, adjudged is and decreed that David hereby P. Stanton be and he now and is adjudged guilty contempt Court, of a direct of this that he be hereby and he now and is fined in the $300.00, sum of and that he be he now and here- by county jail is confined in the County, of Lake period Indiana, days.” for a of Three Considering First: the record applies it us as original action, appears from certain statements appellee’s return, out, as above set that he does complained intend to continue the acts of in appellant’s petition, permit ap- he will pellant appear perform his court and his duties as Prosecuting Attorney. However, an examination of the record, contempt proceedings entire both in the and in appeal, judicial notice, of which take we Rooker v. Fidelity Co., (1931), 641, 651, Trust Trustee Ind. 202 454; Indianapolis Dairymen’s Co-op. N. E. 177 v. Bot- (1948), 260, 261, 409, 412, tema 226 Ind. N. E. 2d speaks discloses conduct of which so loud that whis- the statements in verified return become but pers.
It seems clear from the whole record before us that very on the first occasion appeared when appellee’s subsequent court a criminal mаtter appellee attempted April 4, prevent appellant from appearing there in violation of the writ alternative by April subterfuge by this court issued sentencing summarily contempt him for direct court for the same identical acts for which he appellee’s April clearly expelled court on It from 4th. attempted appears respondent power to use the has punish contempt indirectly court to do thing prevented by which he was the alternative writ doing directly. by appellee from Whether such action question constitutes is which presented upon are not is not we called to decide. prosecuting attorney judicial a constitutional рeople, officer, and he removed elected Judges only by impeachment. from office temporarily office cannot vacate the courts barring arbitrarily prosecuting attorney from long properly him- appearing as he conducts in court so *10 Court, Spencer Co. v. Marion ex rel. Criminal self. State 556, 1020, 551, N. E. 2d (1938), 214 15 E. 16 Ind. N. 2d 888. here light in the two cases entire record
In consideration, opinion the are of we under temporary justice alternative unimpeded the interest of permanent re- made should be heretofore issued writ appellee’s return. gardless in of the statements appeal arises of of The herein out the action Second: finding adjudging ap- the Criminаl Lake contempt guilty direct of court. The pellant said appeal questions presented only involve not respect right for its author- to enforce due court punish impair ity, acts and diminish which tend performance of its respect interfere with such pres- they functions, as well the judicial involve but against summary. personal liberty as ervation of speech, and the proper of free imprisonment, upon may placed the discussion be limit which public office. for of candidates fitness separate assigned, are which Six errors all of follows: summarized overruling
1. trial appellant’s court erred opinion judgment.1 motion to reconsider its overruling appellant’s trial 2. Thе court erred in motion new trial. ruling shall first consider trial
We court’s appellant’s motion to reconsider.
A direct is committed in the of court an act presence interrupt so near thereto as to proceedings, Snyder et
its while it is in session. 152; (1898), 553, al. v. State 151 Ind. 52 N. E. S., Contempt, p. 6, p. 33. §3, §25a, C. J. accept This court will as true the statement entered of record the lower court constituting of the matter contempt. (1929), Blankenbaker v. State 142, Ind. 166 N. E. but will also examine the record, necessary, if to determine whether the alleged contemptuous do, fact, acts to be constitute contempt. Superior acts of Chula Court in and for v. Orange, County App. (1952), 109 Cal. 2d 240 P. 2d 398. finding
Appellant contends that constituting contempt. void for failure to recite the acts An finding examination of the record and in the case *11 at fails specific bar to disclose a recital of acts appellant surrounding any alleged facts acts of judgment against his would appellant which sustain contempt. does, however, appear There in the record way by a recital appel- conclusion that court open lant made certain statements in while session, court was in and that the statements were made “rude, disrespectful insolent in a manner.” 1 p. 112, (Spec. 35, §7, §3-907, Sess.) Acts 1879 Burns’ ch. Replacement. recital of the conclusions of the court herein
The mere requirement satisfy that the acts sufficient to is not alleged constituting contempt dirеct shall be distinctly stated in the order of the but finding' acts in detail the itself must recite and which constitute have been committed found punished. Section defendant for which the 1879, (Spec. Replacement, 3-907, Acts Burns’ 1946 Municipal Gallagher 112, supra; 35, p. v. Sess.) ch. §7, 784, Angeles (1948), 2d 31 Cal. City Los Court of 388, (1943), 384 Ill. 905; People Tavernier P. 2d v. (1940), 218 528; v. Smithwick 51 N. E. 2d Smithwick (1939), Harrington 455; People v. N. 11 E. 2d C. S. App. E. 2d 903. 21 N. 301 Ill. persons present were court-
Affidavits of who April 4, 1952 and heard the statements room appellant at conduct of the time and under observed the by appellant filed herein were the circumstances opinion judg- the court’s motion reconsider part ment, of the record herein. and are a Tipton, M. The affidavit of A. who ais retired farmer truсker, visiting and who is accustomed to the Lake observing proceedings, criminal Criminal signs, words, acts, that he heard all of the states and saw gestures, appellant appellee; and conduct that nothing word, sign, act, appellant did or conduct rude, disrespect- could be construed as insolent or which ; appellant prop- at all himself ful times conducted respect erly court; and with to the and that appellant apolo- appeared very angry and insisted gize. further had Affiant states he observed many that his courtroom times and respect demeanor, toward the court attitude and gentleman, and that his conduct on always that of a
237 April any day 1952 no than was different on other appellant he when had observed in court. Gresh, public affidavit Lawrence
The who is a Indiana, Gary, city that he officer states was away fifty appellant about feet from on April 4th, he no loud or unusual state- and that heard any parties, from either of the nor did he observe ments appellant part either or conduct on the unusual appellee. Beggs,
The affidavit of Thomas who is a retired contractor, during past that electrical states three years Court, he has been a visitor in the Lake Criminal April present appellant and that he on was 1952 when concerning newspaper appellee had discussion a article; aрpellant that he at time or heard no saw do or disrespectful anything rude, manner, say insolent addressing court, stood did not move that he while gestures; frequently and that no he and made around attitude, appellant that his demeanor in court saw April 4, than at different on no and actions were time. other Claussen, of Herman The affidavit who is a retired mechanic and a visitor in the Lake was automobile 4, 1952, April states that he had Court on Criminal appellant in the trial of cases in said court on observed 4,1952 occasions; April that his conduct several he was on other occasions when than no different April addressing the court on while about, did not table, did not walk the counsel he stоod at appellant said voice; gestures raise nor use trial, ready but being in something about his know wanted loud” and speaking “rather appellee was the article responsible for appellant was whether you let said, won’t finally “I that he Times; Hammond practice you apologize here until article”; for the said, your then decision”, “That’s picked *13 up his courtroom; books and left the appellant at any discourteous, no time made insulting rude or remark to the court. Clark,
The affidavit of practicing James J. who is a attorney County, of Lake states that he heard and saw conversation, acts, words, signs gestures the entire and all appellant appellee the conduct of both in the April 4, appellant 1952; courtroom on at no time rude, disrespectful, insolent or was that his attitude court respectful; was courteous and toward and that appellant at no time did the court admonish the concern- demeanor, ing attitude, manner or that at no appellant impede "opera- interfere with time did of the court. tion the above parties,
When statements disinterested weighed against oath, are under conclusions of 'the record, court as recited in the we are forced to appellant conclude that the acts of herein do not contempt. acts direct constitute recognize that while certain We statements and of might contempt not constitute direct themselves might, rude, they if made in a insolent and disrespectful manner, contempt constitute direct manner in because of the which the words were However, appears from the record here that spoken. employed appellant by conduct manner or was no such referred to in the the statements he made the time at record. court’s legislature has, by statute, in Indiana defined provided procedure trial for the
direct charged (Spec. such an offense. Acts 1879 of one 3-906, 2, 6, 3-902, Sess.) §§1, §§3-901, ch. 3-907, Replacement, Burns’ An examination of the record us fails dis- appellant any by presence action of thе close specifications which, by when measured laid down legislature supra, could, even in §3-901, construction, be constitute acts of liberal said to most contempt, such acts be so considered nor could direct of law. rule under clearly appears
It from the statements finding guilty contempt the appellant of direct only which occurred not out matters court considered outside presence of the court but which occurred being held, at building court was in which days prior the date which time thirteen guilty. found attempt Appellant contends that of the court to *14 power punish its him under the circumstances in use right speech
this case violates to free as by guaranteed federal consti- both the and state and, determining question, tutions we dangers against weigh right speech the of free the must appears of courts as it from and intimidation coercion of presented by the record before us. situation the factual proper duty attorney it an the of show is While respect duty the of it is likewise the respect due consideration court the to show attorney. to an right sets the rule which measure when the
The right speech punishment ends and the free ably attaches, by was stated Frank- Justice as follows: furter is the consideration whether “The decisive be, presently pondering is, jury or .will the or Forbidden to affect. that comment seeks decision cоmment weight psychological as throw is such will immediately is scales which into .court us, the
balancing. scales ... In situation had petitioners come to rest. The offended trial by criticizing put what already the court had scales, by attempting themselves to in- weights.” sert Pennekamp (Concurring opinion) v. Florida (1946), 331, 1029, 1295, U.S. S. 90 L. Ct. ed. 1315. appel- In case at it bar is difficult to conceive how lant, either his actions courtroom or appeared Times, statement which in The Hammond have disturbed trial could court in its sense of fair- ness, any it or influenced in the decision of case then pending any If it before it. there was offense to appellee, by appellant from criticism what resulted “put judge, already had in the scales.” There is no evi- attempting dence here that to “insert weights.”
Judges seek re-election who must run on their record. They may expect to be criticised and discussion of their appropriate both conduct is and desirable. prerogatives One of citizenship American men, public to criticise is essential to government our form of of a record subject scrutiny candidate for office be subject only unlimited discussion to the law of libel. Supreme Court of the Craig United States in v.
Harney (1947), 331 U. S. 67 S. Ct. 91 L. ed. 1546, 1550, said: *15 history power punish of “The the for unequivocal . . and the . command of the First Amendment serve constant that free- reminders speech press and of the dom of pairеd should im- not be through power, the exercise of that unless question that is no doubt the- utterances in there a serious and imminent threat adminis- are to the justice.”
tration by The words of caution uttered Mr. Chief Justice delicacy Taft are relevant the here: “The there is in deciding judge’s judicial upon an whether attack his own obstruction, action mere criticism real possibility impulse personal incline his view to Craig (1923), Hecht vindication manifest.” are v. 293, (Concurring) 255, 279, 300, ed. 263 U. S. 68 L. 103. S. Ct.
A situation similar at case bar was Supreme Court of State ex rel. Wisconsin
Ashbaugh County Circuit Eau Claire v. (1897), 97 Wis. 72 N. W. 38 L. R. 554. A. case, judge In that at a time when the re-election, Circuit Court was a lawyer candidate actively practiced published who in said court an article newspaper charging judge being in a with extrava- gant management being partial with respect and unfair to his official conduct trial being cases, corrupt and with influenced motives. charges proceedings These all referred to and cases decided, which had already been heard and did not pertain to pending matters then before the court. Subse- quently, through publication article, of said a news- paper covering ran an subject editorial the same matter. lawyer Both the newspaper the editor of the were judge charged cited with the commission contempt. They a criminal appear were ordered to they why cаuse punished show not should for such alleged contempt. attorney appeared Both the editor and hearing at the time set for and when the court convened prohibition Supreme an alternative writ from the produced upon presiding Court was and served judge. Thereupon the announced he would proceed pending proceedings, further but adjudging at an both editor once order made *16 they lawyer guilty the of for reason direct alleging published the of the had filed truth affidavits 196, Supreme 193, supra, page N. articles. At the 72 W. said: of Wisconsin “Important perform it as is that courts should grave public unimpeded unpreju- their duties illegitimate influences, by there are other diced rights guaranteed by to all citizens our constitution government, expressly or im- of either and form fully important, which pliedly, which are as guarded equally jealous These care. be with an must publi- rights right speech the of free free are subjects’ ‘on all sentiments cation of the citizen’s ; 1; the (Const., §3) Amend. Const. Wis. art. U.S. (Const. 7) ; right jury by art. §§5, of trial Wis. ¿Iso qual- right freely discuss the merits being office, public for ifications a candidate proper responsible for abuse of such a present it law. In case ut- action of most Judge Bailey importance to bear in mind that people re-election. candidate before the for was a any it office been candidate for other Had he a any publi- by one thаt the would not be contended cations in ground question for would afford legal in the action than an action for libel other regular law; but the claim is be- course holding judge, court at and was he cause past time, criticism of his such unfavorable judge summarily punished by may be actions griev- Truly, contempt. be a must for himself as justify weighty necessity so which will ous proceeding, whereby a candidate arbitrary a may accuser, jury, judge, and officebecomes within by summarily critic punish his hours a few is that a doctrine imprisonment. The of such result judge’s past sitting criticism of all unfavorable judge stopped at once action can be official punished stopped, or, can be himself, if any more imprisоnment. be If there can immediate effectual press, gag freedom way and subvert to find it. Under speech, not know where we do re- sitting judge of a such a rule the merits hearsed, pro- there must be his demerits but toas divinity judgment, as our no such silence. In found hedge judge; certainly not when about’ a this ‘doth public office.” he is a candidate for case, the bar, state- In case at Wisconsin only criticism complained ment contained general conduct of and of the character of *17 case, appellee Likewise, the as in Wisconsin his office. the of Criminal is a candidate for re-election as approve County. the of the statement Lake We Court of quoted and believe Supreme of as above Court Wisconsin equal at applies force in the case bar. it Virgin Cir., (1926), People Islands In Francis v. 3 of denied, 693, 865, 860, (Certiorari S. Fed. 273 U. 47 11 2d 91, 843), it is said: L. Ed. Ct. S. jurisprudence, extraordinary action “In the our to heal the wound- contempt court does not lie of of only may judge; it invoked sensibilities of a ed offending impedes the ad- disturbes act or when the justice.”
ministration of Judges elected, every may in Indiana are and citizen freely fully the fitness or and discuss unfitness of all office; they may freely for criticise all deci- candidates and, legitimate by argument, sions rendered es- unsoundness, their and soundness or com- tablish efficiency inefficiency, on or discuss the or ment judicial fidelity infidelity оfficers or with which discharge would be a To otherwise duties. hold their speech press of which freedom of restriction of and system necessary preservation of to of our is so hand, government integrity. in its the other On Ray Judge Ind. Lairy, (1917), State by stated v. 396, 869, 114 N. E. contempt punish to for inherent “The is necessary preservation every It court. is to the of
order, judgments, to the enforcement writs orders, and therefore is essential due admin- justice. Fortunately, the occasion for istration arise, power often the exercise it is seldom exercised does not except the courts ex- long cases. as critics confine their criti- treme So upon facts them the decisions of and base сism they commit no no matter how the court they pass be; criticism but when severe judicial charge beyond conduct line and by improper, corrupt or selfish mo- was influenced by politi- tives, that such conduct was affected or interest, poison prejudice tendency is cal justice distrust, create the foundation destroy people courts. of the in their the confidence engendered feeling would create dissatisfac- A thus determination; judicial it all would affect tion with courts; standing of the would and usefulness seriously dangerously affect the administration necessary justice. It therefore sometimes power punish to exercise for con- courts their judges tempt, nor to vindi- not for the sake standing, them, maintain cate but order dignity, respect, the usefulness through justice is administered and which courts to the people.” *18 when, here, a candidate for But a becomes public permits his policy a discussion re-election full past subject record, only law and not to the of libel contempt. law of foregoing erred
It follows from refusing judgment, and opinion to reconsider his appellant’s have been motion for such relief should sustained.
Having overruling decided that the court erred in appellant’s reconsider, necessary motion not is ruling appellant’s consider the motion the court on new trial. purports the records All available be in evidence good grant- purpose us and could no be served ing a new trial one be ordered. should mandate The alternative writ of 1. THEREFORE: original action, numbered cause issued heretofore permanent, 28,909, notwithstand- is made this court return; and 2. ing appellee’s verified (respondent’s) num- in cause judgment of reversed the trial is Judge 28,943 Lake and the in this bered judgment to vacate said instructed Criminal Court (appellant). discharge defendant judgment re- permanent made Alternative writ versed. participating. J.,
Draper, opinion. J., with Jasper, concurs C. OPINION
CONCURRING result reached concur Jasper, C. J.I Although actions of Prose- majority opinion. officer, keeping cuting Attorney, judicial not in were subject office, dignity were not actions being court. a direct punished for Note.—Reported 2d 251. E.N. Department Ex Rel. Indiana
State Conservation Et v. Pulaski Circuit Al. 28,858. October Filed
[No. 1952.]