In re Riggsbee
| Decision Date | 21 January 1907 |
| Citation | 151 F. 701 |
| Parties | In re RIGGSBEE |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Harry Skinner, for the United States.
Pou & Fuller, for defendant.
The court is asked to attach respondent for contempt on the ground that he has committed a contempt of this court in unlawfully using and abusing the process of this court to obstruct the administration of justice in the superior court of Durham county, N.C., and on motion of the United States attorney a rule to show cause was issued; the cause having been heard on the pleadings at the regular December term, and the further hearing continued to the adjourned term in January. To this rule respondent has answered, first by plea:
'(1) That, even if he had attempted an act the effect of which would be to obstruct the administration of justice in the superior court of Durham county, North Carolina, the said act would not be a contempt of this court, and that this court would not have jurisdiction under the laws enacted by the Congress of the United States to punish for such alleged offense.'
Second by demurrer:
'(2) Respondent demurs to the sufficiency of the rule, and alleges that upon its face the said rule does not set out facts or circumstances which would constitute a contempt of this court, and that, there being no allegation that the alleged offense was committed within the presence, verge or view of the court, and there being no allegation that respondent was an officer of this court, or that he had refused to obey any injunction, writ, or process of this court, there are no facts or circumstances for which this honorable court may punish respondent as for a contempt.'
Third by answer:
'(3) With the reservation aforesaid of all rights, and without waiving any rights or consenting to jurisdiction, respondent alleges that it is not true that he has abused or used the process of this court to obstruct the administration of justice in the superior court of Durham county, North Carolina.'
This pleading is duly verified and certified in due form by three firms and one individual attorney, all reputable members of the profession. Suppose the allegations made are true, which respondent denies under oath, and considering the matter purely as a question of law, do the allegations in the application or the rule, taking them to be true, constitute a contempt of this court? 'Butting in' to cases, is simply intermeddling with other people's business, exceedingly bad manners, but does not constitute a contempt of court.
Contempts of court, as are all other offenses cognizable by this court, are statutory, and, being penal, the rule is the statutes are to be strictly construed. Section 725, Rev. St. (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 583), is erroneously supposed by some to be the only statute on the subject; but in this section, or the proviso therein, Congress sought to limit the manner in which the power of the courts, which, as said by the Supreme Court, is inherent in all courts, may punish for contempt, as follows:
'Provided that such power to punish for contempt shall not be construed to extend to any cases except the misbehavior of any person in their presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, the misbehavior of any of the officers of said courts in their official transactions or the disobedience or resistance of any such officer or by any party, juror, witness or other person to any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree or command of said court.'
Riggsbee was not an officer or a suitor in the court. His attorneys were officers, but the attorneys are not before the court. The rule as to attorneys and officers is even stronger than as to suitors or citizens who are not suitors. An attorney who collects money for his client and refuses to pay it over is liable to be attached for contempt. If he has counter acts or claims for his services, the courts will leave the matter to be settled in the usual way, but may disbar him for misconduct. Ex parte Robinson, 19 Wall. (U.S.) 506, 22 L.Ed. 205. Why? Because he is an officer of the court. Rule 7 of this district is based on the decisions of the higher courts, and supported by authorities it is not necessary to quote:
Courts of justice have an inherent power to punish all persons for contempt of their rules and orders, for disobedience of their process, and for disturbing them in their proceedings. Bouvier, and authorities cited, English and American.
It is said that it belongs exclusively to the court offended to judge of contempt and what amounts to a contempt (State v. Matthews, 37 N.H. 450), and no other court or judge can or ought to undertake in a collateral way to question or review an adjudication of contempt made by another competent jurisdiction. Authorities in Bouvier, 352. But it is now held that a court of superior jurisdiction may review on a matter of contempt on...
To continue reading
Request your trial