OPEN COURT. A court formally opened and engaged in the transaction of all judi cial functions. Hobart v. Hobart, 45 Ia. 501.
A court to which all persons have free ac cess as spectators while they conduct them selves in an orderly manner.
The term is used in the first sense as dis tinguishing a court from a judge sitting in chambers or informally for the transaction of such matters as may be thus transacted. See CHAMBERS ; COURT.
In the second sense, all courts in the Unit ed States are open; but in England, former ly, while the parties and probably their wit nesses were admitted freely in the courts, all other persons were required to pay in order to obtain admittance. Stat. 13 Edw. I. cc. 42, 44; Barr. on the Stat. 126, 127. See Prin. of Pen. Law 165.
In most of the states the constitution pro vides that persons accused shall have a speedy public trial; Stimson, Am. Stat. L. § 131. This has been construed to mean that the doors of the court-room are expected to be kept open, the public are entitled to be admitted, and the trial is to be public in all respects . . . with due regard, to the size of the court-room and the conveniences of the court, the right to exclude objectionable char acterS and youth of tender years, and to do other things which may facilitate the proper conduct of the trial ;" People v. Hartman, 103 Cal. 242, 37 Pac. 153, 42 Am. St. Rep. 108; in this case a conviction of assault with' intent to commit rape was reversed because against defendant's objection all persons were excluded except the officers of the court and the defendant ; id. In a trial of a civil case of trespass for adultery the judgment was re versed because all but parties and witnesses were excluded; Williamson v. Lacy, 86 Me. 80, 29 Atl. 943, 25 L. R. A. 506.
In California the court may direct the trial of issues of fact in private; Cal. Code, C. P. § 125; but this act does not authorize the court to forbid the publication of the testi mony, and when such an order was made, an order of contempt against a newspaper publisher was reversed ; In re Shortridge, 99 Cal. 526, 34 Pac. 227, 21 L. R. A. 755, 37 Am. St. Rep. 78. On a trial for assault with in tent to kill, all persons were excluded except officers of the court, press reporters, and friends of defendant ; the order was made on behalf of defendant, who was liable to be excited by a crowd, as well as to preserve order, and it was held that her right to a public trial was not violated; People v. Ker
rigan, 73 Cal. 222, 14 Pac. 849.
In a suit for an 'injunction against the Use of secret processes it was held error to ex clude evidence of the details, as accurate knowledge on the subject is required before granting an injunction, but the embodiment of the secret in the injunction is not neces sary ; testimony taken in camera may be sealed, and used only when it becomes nec essary to determine whether there has been a violation; Taylor I. & S. Co. v. Nichols, 73 N. J. Eq. 684, 69 Atl. 186, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 933, 133 Am. St. Rep. 753.
It was said by Lord Eldon that it was the uniform practice in chancery, as long as the court had existed, in the case of fami ly disputes, on the application of counsel on both sides, to hear the same in the chancel lor's private room, and that what was so done was not the act of the judge but of the parties; Coop. t. Eldon 106; in a later case, on application for a private bearing relating to the custody of a young lady who was a ward of the court, Lord Brougham directed the case to be heard in private on the assur ance of counsel that such course was proper, notwithstanding that one party withheld his consent ; 2 Russ. & M. 688; and it is noted that this course was frequently followed by the same judge; id. In a patent case, the court being of opinion that the patent was valid, permitted the defendant to state his secret process in camera; 24 Ch. D. 156 ; an application for an injunction to restrain a solicitor from disclosing confidential infor mation was ordered to be heard in private without consent of defendant, upon the state ment of, plaintiff's counsel that in his opinion a public hearing would defeat the object of the action; .31 Ch. D. 55; 9 Ch. App. 522; but this will not be done without consent of both parties unless it is clear that such would be the result of a public hearing; id.