Russell v. French

• Citation: 67 Iowa 102,24 N.W. 741
• Parties: RUSSELL v. FRENCH.
• Decision Date: 07 October 1885
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

67 Iowa 102

24 N.W. 741

RUSSELL

v.FRENCH.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed October 7, 1885.

Certiorari. The plaintiff is a practicing attorney, and was fined by the defendant for a contempt of court. He claims that the court exceeded its jurisdiction or otherwise acted illegally in thus punishing him, and he seeks in this proceeding to have the judgment of the court set aside.J. Scott Richman and W. F. Brannan, for plaintiff.

J. Carskaddan, for defendant.

SEEVERS, J.

A cause was being tried in the circuit court, in which plaintiff was acting as one of the attorneys for one of the parties. During the progress of the trial the plaintiff asked a witness a question, to which objection was made by the attorneys for the plaintiff that the question had been already answered, and thereupon the court, after hearing the prior questions and answers read by the short-hand reporter engaged in taking the evidence, announced his decision sustaining the objection, and stating that the question had been already answered. Immediately upon this ruling the said J. J. Russell sprang to his feet, and, turning to the court, said in loud tones and insulting manner: “She has not answered the question.” Whereupon the court then and there fined the said Russell the sum of $50 on account of contempt of court thus committed in the presence of the court and known to the court of its own knowledge, and judgment was accordingly entered.

The plaintiff insists that the foregoing record made by the court at the time, as provided in section 3497 of the Code, is not full and complete, and does not state the facts correctly, and he has caused to be filed certain affidavits, statements, and depositions which, he insists, support the claim made. Counsel for the defendant insists that these papers cannot be considered and should be stricken from the record. We do not deem it necessary to determine this question, but will hereafter refer to the affidavits and depositions so far as deemed necessary.

1. It is provided by statute that “contemptuous or insolent behavior towards a court while engaged in the discharge of a judicial duty which may tend to impair the respect due to its authority” is a contempt. Code, § 3491. When the court made the ruling it did, whether right or wrong, the plaintiff should either have submitted thereto, taken an exception, and had the error, if it was one, corrected on appeal, or in respectful language and manner have addressed the court and asked to have the ruling reconsidered; but if the court declined to hear him, the plaintiff should have acquiesced therein. The time for argument is before the decision. Counsel then have the right to insist on being heard. When a decision has been made, the time for argument has passed, unless permission of the court is asked and obtained. Of course, it will be understood, if the right to a rehearing exists and is asked, the right to make an argument would seem to be apparent; but even in such case the court in its discretion might decline to hear the argument. Instead of taking this course, or one approximating thereto, the plaintiff, as the court thought, in “loud tones and insulting manner,” directly contradicted a statement of fact made by the court, and upon which the decision was based. We therefore feel constrained to say that such conduct was contemptuous, and had a tendency to impair the respect due to the authority of the court. If the plaintiff believed the statement made by the court to be incorrect, and he deemed it material for the interest of his client to have it corrected, and the decision...