Stuart v. People of State

• Decision Date: 31 December 1842
• Citation: 3 Scam. 395,1842 WL 3783,4 Ill. 395
• Parties: William Stuart, plaintiff in error,v.The People of the State of Illinois, defendants in error.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

3 Scam. 395

4 Ill. 395

1842 WL 3783 (Ill.)

William Stuart, plaintiff in error,

v.The People of the State of Illinois, defendants in error.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

December Term, 1842.

Error to Cook.

The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court embraces every case where a final order has been made by the Circuit Court, the effect of which may be to deprive a party of any of his rights. ^a

In all criminal cases, not capital, the writ of error is a writ of right, and issues of course. ^b

The proceeding against a party for a contempt of court is in the nature of a criminal proceeding.

A writ of error may be sued out of the Supreme Court to reverse the decision of a Circuit Court, fining a person for contempt of court.

Contempts of court are either direct, such as are offered to the court, while sitting as such and in its presence, or constructive, being offered, not in its presence, but tending, by their operation, to obstruct and embarrass, or prevent, the due administration of justice.

The right in the courts to punish for contempts committed in the presence of the court is acknowledged by statute, and while it affirms a principle that is inherent in all courts of justice, to defend themselves when attacked, it may be regarded as a limitation upon the power of the courts to punish for any other contempts. In this power would necessarily be included all acts calculated to impede, embarrass, or obstruct the court in the administration of justice. Such acts would be considered as done in the presence of the court. So, also, rules entered by the court, prohibiting the publication of the evidence, or other matters, whilst the case is pending and undecided. ^c

Such portions only of the common law as are applicable to our institutions and suited to the genius of our people, can be regarded as in force in this state. ^d

At the May term, 1840, of the Circuit Court of Cook county, the Hon. John Pearson presiding, the following entry was made of record:

“The clerk will enter a rule, and let the same be served on the said William Stuart, to show cause why, by two o'clock P. M., the eighth day of May, why he, the said Stuart, ought not to be fined or imprisoned, or both, for publishing, in the ‘Chicago Daily American,’ on May 7th, A. D. 1840, a contemptuous article of and concerning the jury and Circuit Court of Cook county, while sitting in relation to the trial of John Stone, charged with murder, while the said trial was in progress and still undetermined.”

The following interrogatories were also exhibited to said Stuart, to be answered by him:

+-----------------------------------------------+
                ¦“APRIL TERM, A. D. 1841,¦)¦                    ¦
                +------------------------+-+--------------------¦
                ¦                        ¦)¦Contempt of Court.  ¦
                +------------------------+-+--------------------¦
                ¦Cook Circuit Court.     ¦)¦                    ¦
                +-----------------------------------------------+
                

In Publishing, in the ‘Daily Chicago American,’ Certain Contemptuous Articles of and concerning the Court and Jury, pending the Trial of John Stone, for Murder, on the 7th of May, 1840.

Interrogatory first. Why did you publish, in said paper, on the 7th inst., the article referred to, of and concerning John Wentworth, a juror in the case of The People v. Stone, on his trial for murder, while serving as such juror? State the reason.

Interrogatory second. Why did you publish, at the same time, the statement, in the same paper, that John Wentworth, a juror in said case, while acting in that capacity, was writing editorial articles?

Interrogatory third. Who informed you that the judge of this court directed the officers of this court to close the doors during the trial of Stone, to prevent all ingress and egress? If any person, state who.

Also give the reason for such publication, and why you used this expression: “One individual suggested that the weakness of his honor's head would not admit of the noise and confusion incident to a crowd of hearers, and a proper attention to the cause, all at the same time.'

A. HUNTINGTON,

State's Attorney.

And afterwards, to wit, on the 9th day of May, A. D.1840, the said defendant, by Butterfield and Arnold, his counsel, filed the following motion, to wit:

And the said William Stuart comes and represents that he has been attached, as for a contempt of this court, a copy of the rule upon which the said attachment was issued being hereunto attached. This respondent says that from the said rule, and the interrogatories propounded to him, it appears that the alleged contempt consisted in the publishing an article in the ‘Chicago American,’ on the 7th day of May inst.; and the defendant protests against the said arrest and jurisdiction of this court to commit, or to proceed and punish for contempt for the cause aforesaid, and respectfully prays he may be discharged from his arrest, and alleges the following grounds:

1. The act complained of is not, in law, a contempt of this court.

2. The court can not legally punish, as for a contempt, a publication made in a newspaper, and not done in the immediate presence of the court.

3. No publication out of court, in relation to the court, or any of its officers, jurors, or witnesses, amounts, in law, to a contempt, and the same can not be punished as such.

BUTTERFIELD & ARNOLD,

Counsel for Stuart.

And thereupon, afterwards, to wit, on the same day and year last aforesaid, came the said William Stuart, and filed, upon oath, the following answers to the interrogatories propounded to him, as aforesaid, said answers being as follows, to wit:

COOK CIRCUIT COURT, APRIL TERM, A. D. 1841.

+-----------------------+
                ¦_              ¦)¦     ¦
                +---------------+-+-----¦
                ¦WILLIAM STUART ¦)¦     ¦
                +---------------+-+-----¦
                ¦ads.           ¦)¦ss.  ¦
                +---------------+-+-----¦
                ¦THE PEOPLE.    ¦)¦     ¦
                +---------------+-+-----¦
                ¦_              ¦)¦     ¦
                +-----------------------+
                

1. This respondent, William Stuart, being duly sworn, in answer to the first interrogatory propounded to him, to wit, ‘Why did you publish, in said paper, on the 7th inst., the articles referred to, of and concerning John Wentworth, a juror in the case of The People v. Stone, on his trial for murder, while serving as such juror?’ states, that assuming John Wentworth to be the person referred to as the editor of the democratic paper, and as the said juror intended in the article to which this respondent supposes the interrogatory refers--this respondent published the same because he knew it to be true, of his own knowledge, and can prove the same, by competent witnesses, if necessary so to do; and because he deemed it to be an individual act of an individual juror, highly improper, and worthy of censure in his capacity of editor of a public journal. And this respondent, by said publication, did not intend to cast any contempt upon this court, nor upon the said jury, as a body, but, on the contrary, he has declared and believes the said jury to have been a highly respectable and intelligent body.

2. In answer to the second interrogatory, to wit, ‘Why did you publish, at the same time, in the same paper, the statement that John Wentworth, a juror in said case, while sitting in that capacity, was writing editorial articles?’ this respondent, again assuming John Wentworth to mean (in the language of the said article) the editor of the loco foco organ, who was one of the jury, states that he published the same because he was informed, by one of the jury, that the same was true; that he believes the same to be true, and can prove the same, by competent testimony, if necessary so to do; and because he believed said conduct highly improper, and worthy of censure; that he referred to the same as the individual act of an individual juror, and intended, by said publication, to cast no contempt either on this court or the jury. This respondent further states, in justification of the truth of said publication, that the following editorial article, which appeared in the ‘Chicago Morning Democrat’ of May 7th, the same day on which the publication complained of was made, was written by the said John Wentworth, while sitting as a member of the said jury, as this respondent is informed, by one of the said jurors, and verily believes to be true, to wit:

‘ Another Whig Victory.

Why has the editor of this paper been a Harrison man for the last three days?

Because he has been under keepers, and allowed to express no sentiments, and answer no questions.'

And this respondent would respectfully suggest and contend, that this respondent is not justly chargeable with any intention to cast contempt on this court, or the said jury, by alluding to the fact of said publication, but intended to disapprove of the act of said Wentworth in writing and publishing, under the solemn circumstances of his situation, an inuendo of such levity against this court and its officers, as his keepers aforesaid.

This respondent further states, that the acknowledgment of the truth of the statement contained in the said last interrogatory, appeared, as editorial, in the ‘Chicago Morning Democrat’ of the same date, to wit:

‘The editor of this paper has been confined, as juror on the murder case, ever since Monday noon last, not being allowed to come to his office, though not hindered from sending articles thither, if they were sent through the sheriff.’

3. In answer to the third interrogatory, to wit, ‘Who informed you that the judge of this court directed the officers of this court to close the doors during the trial of Stone, to prevent all ingress or egress?’ this respondent states, that he has not, in his paper, declared that he was thus informed, by any person. The article alluded to was a communication, purporting to be one of inquiry, and signed ‘Many interested,’ which this respondent received from the post office, and to which he annexed a comment, charging the said correspondent with a mistake. This respondent, however, had heard some...