McClatchy

Section 1209 of the Code of Civil Procedure declares that any unlawful interference with the proceedings of a court is a contempt of the authority of the court; and when facts are presented to the court which could under any circumstances have interfered with its proceedings *423 in the trial of a cause, it has jurisdiction to investigate the charge of contempt.

Ho question as to the general power of the court is presented in the present case. Its jurisdiction to investigate a charge of contempt is not denied. Whether it had jurisdiction to investigate the charge against the petitioner does not depend upon any review of evidence, but is to be determined by the sufficiency of the affidavit upon which the citation to him was issued. If the facts set forth in that affidavit are sustained, its power to punish for the contempt therein charged follows as a legal conclusion. That the affidavit of Mr. Jones sets forth facts sufficient to give to the court jurisdiction to inquire into the alleged contempt, and to determine whether the acts charged against the petitioner had been committed by him, cannot be questioned, and the regularity of the procedure by which he was brought before the…

Certiorari to review an order of the respondent adjudging petitioner guilty of contempt.

While the cause of Talmadge v. Talmadge was on trial in the-superior court of Sacramento county, an article appeared in the Sacramento Bee, a newspaper published in the city of Sacramento, purporting to be an account of certain testimony given by one of the witnesses; and when, at the opening of court nezt day, its attention was called to the article by one of the attorneys in the cause, the judge stated from the bench that he had no hesitation in saying that the statement referred to was a grossly false statement, a gross fabrication, and that there was not the-slightest ground in the testimony of the witness upon which such *415 a statement could be based. In the afternoon of that day the Bee published in its editorial columns the following article:

“The Bee will not keep in its employ a reporter who garbles or who misstates, but when a newsgatherer does his duty and tells the truth it will not stand silently by while an aggregation of attorneys try to make him out a liar, and while a prejudiced and vindictive czar upon the bench aids and abets them in such a purpose. The Bee reasserts…

I concur in the judgment annulling the order under review. The case is a very close one; but I think that the alleged contempt rested ultimately upon the asserted fabrication and publication by petitioner of false testimony and his persistency in restating this version of the same as true. This being so, he should have been allowed to introduce such evidence as he had to the point that his publication of the testimony was a fair and correct statement of it. The court declined to hear any evidence from him on that subject; and the weight of authority is to the point that this ruling, being a denial of appellant’s right to make a defense, goes to the jurisdiction and is reviewable on certiorari. If petitioner had been allowed to introduce the offered evidence the case would have presented no difficulties.

A cause being on trial in the superior court, a newspaper publishes what purports to be a portion of the testimony of one of the parties to the action.

The attention of the judge being called to the publication, he pronounces it grossly false from his seat on the bench. The publisher in the next issue of his paper, and while the cause is *422 still on trial, reasserts the correctness of his report and in coarsely vituperative terms retorts upon the judge the accusation of falsehood. Is this a contempt of court?

The answer to this question depends, it seems to me, upon the further question, whether or not the judge, in denouncing the original report, was acting in a judicial capacity.

A true report of the proceedings of a court is not a contempt. A false report may or may not be a contempt according to circumstances. If a false report is published under such circumstances as to constitute a contempt, there is but one way to deal with the matter judicially, and that is by a regular citation or attachment and a hearing. If the court or judge undertakes to act upon the matter in any other way, his action is extrajudicial and not in his official character.

Such, it seems to me, was…