People v. Wilson
Citations
- 64 Ill. 195
Syllabus
<p>1. Contempt—what constitutes—power of the court to punish therefor. Contempts are defined to be, direct, such as are offered in the presence of the court, while sitting judicially, or constructive, such, though not in its presence, as tend to obstruct and embarrass or prevent the due administration of justice.</p> <p>3. According to the general doctrine, any publication, whether by parties or strangers, which concerns a case pending in court, and has a tendency to prejudice the public concerning its merits, and to corrupt the administration of justice, or which reflects on the tribunal or its proceedings, or on the parties, the jurors, the witnesses or the counsel, may be visited as a contempt.</p> <p>3. So where an article was published in a newspaper at a place remote from that at which the court was then being held, in reference to a case then pending, reflecting upon the action of the court therein, impeaching its integrity, and seeking to intimidate the court in respect to its action in the case, by a threat of popular clamor,'it was held: the publication was a contempt of court, and punishable as such by process of attachment.</p> <p>4 The power to punish for contempts is an incident to all courts of justice, independent of statutory provisions. The statute which declares that the Supreme Court “ shall have power to punish contempts offered by any person to it while sitting,” merely affirms a pre-existent power, and does not attempt to restrict its exercise to contempts in the presence of the court; but leaves them to be determined by the principles of the common law.</p> <p>5. And if the statute should be regarded as a limitation upon the power of the court to punish for any other contempts than those committed in its presence, yet 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.</p> <p>6. Nor is it
Judges: Laweence, McAllister, Scott, Sheldon, Thoenton
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
63 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Near v. Minnesota Ex Rel. OlsonSupreme Court· 1931-06-01· cited 1,633×
- In re the Estate of JessupCalifornia Supreme Court· 1889-11-30· cited 119×
- Dahnke v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court· 1897-11-01· cited 79×
- Ex parte CraigSecond Circuit· 1922-05-22· cited 71×
- Telegram Newspaper Co. v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1899-01-04· cited 69×
- Little v. StateIndiana Supreme Court· 1883-05-15· cited 59×
- Storey v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court· 1875-09-15· cited 55×
- In re MerrillNew Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1917-08-31· cited 55×
- Van Dyke v. Superior CourtArizona Supreme Court· 1922-12-30· cited 52×
- State v. McClaughertyWest Virginia Supreme Court· 1889-11-21· cited 51×
- Cheadle v. StateIndiana Supreme Court· 1887-04-05· cited 49×
- Hake v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court· 1907-10-23· cited 48×
- Kregel v. BartlingNebraska Supreme Court· 1888-01-15· cited 33×
- The PEOPLE v. GossIllinois Supreme Court· 1957-03-20· cited 28×
- State v. MasonOregon Supreme Court· 1894-11-05· cited 28×
- United States v. AnonymousU.S. Circuit Court· 1884-10-06· cited 28×
- KUTV, INC. v. ConderUtah Supreme Court· 1983-06-23· cited 27×
- People v. SeymourIllinois Supreme Court· 1916-02-16· cited 22×
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. GildersleeveSupreme Court of Missouri· 1909-04-13· cited 22×
- People ex rel. Brundage v. PetersIllinois Supreme Court· 1922-10-21· cited 21×
Cites
2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.