Speeches and Addresses

Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: In Re SHORTRIDGE May It Please Your Honors: This proceeding was instituted to review a judgment punishing the petitioner for contempt, charged to have been committed in publishing the testimony given on the trial of a case, in disregard of an order forbidding such publication. The facts lie within a narrow...
More Description

Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: In Re SHORTRIDGE May It Please Your Honors: This proceeding was instituted to review a judgment punishing the petitioner for contempt, charged to have been committed in publishing the testimony given on the trial of a case, in disregard of an order forbidding such publication. The facts lie within a narrow compass, and may be briefly stated as follows: On the loth day of January of the present year, when the divorce case of Price vs. Price was called for trial, the Superior Court of the County of Santa Clara ordered that the hearing be had in private, and that no publication or other report of the testimony be made. The following morning, the petitioner, though aware of the order, published in a newspaper of which he was the editor a fair and truthful statement of the evidence given on the preceding day. Being advised of this fact, the court cited him to show cause why he should not be punished for his disobedience. He appeared, and maintained that it was his right to publish the proceedings; that that right was not impaired by the fact that the trial washad behind closed doors, nor affected by the order forbidding the publication. The court, not acceding to these views, adjudged him guilty of contempt. In the elaborate opinion rendered by the court, this course is vindicated on the ground that it was warranted by that provision of the Code of Civil Procedure which authorizes it to punish as a contempt any disobedience of its lawful orders. It said: ? In this matter, the court relies for its authority upon section 1209 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on Contempts, which says: ' That any disobedience to a lawful order of court shall be contempt.' The court is not asserting that there has been any unlawful interference with its process or proceedings, but that there has ...