In Re Robinson.

• Citation: 117 N.C. 533,23 S.E. 453
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decision Date: 23 December 1895
• Parties: In re ROBINSON.

23 S.E. 453

117 N.C. 533

In re ROBINSON.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 23, 1895.

Contempt—Procedure—Trial of Issues.

Where, on rule for contempt, under Code, § 648, subd. 7, declaring that one who publishesa grossly incorrect report of the proceedings in any court, with the intent to misrepresent or bring into contempt said court, shall be punished, etc., respondent says that he believes the statement published by him is correct, and that it was not made with intent to misrepresent the court, or bring it into contempt, he is entitled to have the issue tried, if there is nothing on the face of the publication to show that it is grossly incorrect, or calculated to bring the court into contempt.

Appeal from criminal court, Buncombe county; Ewart, Judge.

Prank E. Robinson was adjudged guilty of contempt of court, and appeals. Reversed.

Moore & Moore, Lock Craig, and J. S. Adams, for appellant.

W. W. Jones and J. M. Moody, for appellee.

FURCHES, J. It is a delicate matter for a court to sit in judgment, when it is in any way connected with the matter under consideration. It is contrary to the spirit of our institutions, and should only be done when the public good and the public service demand it. Then it should be done promptly, firmly, and without personal considerations. Our courts constitute one of the co-ordinate departments of our government, established by the constitution and the legislation thereunder. They are not only a part of the government, but are necessary to the enforcement of the law, and the protection of the lives, the liberty, and the property, of our citizens. This they cannot do without the power to protect themselves, by enforcing order and respect for the court, and obedience to its mandates. To this end it is clothed with inherent power to punish summarily for any act committed in its presence, or so near its sittings as to disturb the proceedings of the court, in violation of its rules of orderly conduct, or that is calculated to disturb the business of the court, or to impair its usefulness, or to bring it into disrespect and contempt. State v. Mott, 4 Jones (N. C.) 449; Ex parte Schenck, 65 N. C. 366; In re Moore, 63 N. C. 397; In re Deaton, 105 N. C. 59, 11 S. E. 244, and cases cited. These powers, it is conceded, cannot be taken from the courts by legislation. But at common law there were many other acts, not committed in the presence of the court, which were considered as calculated and intended to impair the usefulness of the courts, and to bring them into disrespect, that the courts treated as contempts, and punished the offenders; and it is held that this class of contempt may be regulated and prescribed by legislation. Ex parte Schenck, supra, and cases cited in the argument of that case. The case we are now considering falls under this class, and, whatever may have been the law before, the act of the 4th of April, 1871, governs this case. Ex parte Schenck, supra.

It is contended that respondent violated section 648, subd. 7, of the Code, in publishing the article set out in the rule to show cause, and is on that account guilty of con tempt. This section is as follows: "The publication of grossly incorrect reports of the proceedings in any court, about any trial or other matter pending before said court, made with intent to misrepresent or to bring into contempt the said court; but no person can be punished as for contempt in publishing a true, full and fair report of any trial, argument, decision or proceedings had in court." The only part...