State v. E. M. Sutton
| Decision Date | 29 November 1901 |
| Citation | 52 A. 116,74 Vt. 12 |
| Parties | STATE v. E. M. SUTTON |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
October Term, 1901.
INDICTMENT for criminal defamation. The respondent demurred and at the March Term, 1901, Washington County, Watson, J presiding, pending hearing on the demurrer, objected to Judge Watson sitting in the case. This objection was overruled, pro forma, and upon hearing, the demurrer was overruled, pro forma. The respondent excepted.
Affirmed and remanded.
V. A. Bullard for the respondent.
Present: ROWELL, TYLER, MUNSON, START and STAFFORD, JJ.
This is an indictment under section 5072 of the Vermont Statutes, for defaming this court, and a judgment thereof, and the judges of the court as to said judgment. It is objected that Judge Watson, who sat below, was disqualified by reason of interest in the event of the cause or matter, for that he is one of the judges alleged to have been defamed.
It is a pecuniary interest that disqualifies, and Judge Watson is no more interested in this case in that respect than he is in every other criminal case that he tries, and that interest is too small for the law's notice. State v Batchelder, 6 Vt. 479.
It is said that a judge defamed would be deeply interested to have the respondent convicted, not only that he might be severely punished, but also for the aid it might afford him in the prosecution and maintenance of a civil action for damages. But such an interest does not disqualify; and it is not perceived how a conviction could aid a civil action, unless it was had on a plea of guilty.
The only claim made under the demurrer is, that the words alleged are not defamatory under the statute, which is this: "A person who defames a court of justice, or a sentence or proceeding thereof, or defames the magistrates, judges, or justices of such court, as to an act or sentence therein passed, shall be fined," etc.
It is alleged that one Cosgrove was the defendant in the action in which the judgment in question was rendered, and was a Democrat at the time; and that after the rendition of said judgment, the respondent, in a certain conversation that he had with divers persons of and concerning this court and the judges thereof, and of and concerning said judgment published and declared these words, namely: "There is no use for a Democrat to bring anything to the supreme court of Vermont where politics is involved, and there is an unbroken...
To continue reading
Request your trial