Ex Parte Crews
| Decision Date | 13 February 1937 |
| Citation | 173 So. 275,127 Fla. 381 |
| Parties | Ex parte CREWS. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied March 25, 1937.
Original habeas corpus proceeding by John D. Crews.
Motion for final judgment denied, and petitioner remanded to custody.
On Petition for Rehearing.
Pine & Giblin, of Miami, for petitioner.
Cary D. Landis, Atty. Gen., and Roy Campbell, Asst Atty. Gen., for thE state
BUFORD Justice. This is an original habeas corpus proceeding.
The record shows that George A. Worley as state's attorney in and for the Eleventh judicial circuit of Florida in the circuit court of Dade county, filed an information charging John D. Crews with the offense of contempt of court. The charging part of the information was as follows:
'On the 11th day of June A. D. 1936, in Dade County, Florida one John D. Crews approached one Mrs. Olive Wofford, wife of John B. Wofford, parties defendant in a certain cause pending in a certain court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for Dade County, wherein Patricia Wofford, a married woman, joined by her husband and next friend Tatem Wofford, and Tatem Wofford, individually, were plaintiffs, and John B. Wofford and Olive Wofford, his wife, and Wofford Hotel Corporation were defendants, the said cause bearing file number 41348-B, and with intent to bring this Court into disrepute spoke of and concerning the Honorable Worth W. Trammell, Judge of this Court, and represented and pretended to her, the said Olive Wofford, that he, the said John D. Crews, could corrupt this Court and could influence the decision and judgment of the Court by the payment of money, and did request the said Olive Wofford to pay to him, the said John D. Crews, the sum of Twenty-four Hundred Dollars ($2400.00) to be delivered to the said Judge of the said Court as a bribe to corruptly influence the judgment and decision of this Court; that such conduct on the part of him, the said John D. Crews, was wilful and contemptuous and tended to bring this Court into disrepute.'
The affidavit attached to the information was as follows:
'Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared G. A. Worley, who being by me first duly sworn, deposes and says; That he is the qualified and acting State Attorney of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, that he signed the above and foregoing Information and knows the contents thereof, and that the allegations therein contained are based upon facts sworn to as true, and that in the opinion of the Affiant such facts, if true, constitute criminal contempt.'
There was a motion to discharge the rule issued pursuant to the above information. Motion to discharge was denied. Judgment was entered in the following language:
'A rule or order heretofore issued out of this Court wherein and whereby the above named defendant or respondent, John D. Crews, was commanded and required to show cause before this Court on Wednesday, the 24th day of June A. D. 1936, at two o'clock in the afternoon, why he should not be adjudged in contempt of this Court because and by reason of the matters and things alleged and set forth in and by the Information heretofore filed herein by the State Attorney of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida.
'Now, therefore, inasmuch as the said defendant or respondent has not made herein any denial of any of the matters and things alleged and set forth in and by the said information and has not made herein any response, answer or defense to the said rule or order, other than the said denied motion and testimony having been taken to sustain the allegations of said Information;
'It is, by the court, adjudged that the said defendant or respondent, John D. Crews, is guilty of a contempt of this Court by reason and because of the said matters and things alleged and set forth in and by the said information; and it is, by the Court, ordered, and adjudged that for such contempt he shall suffer imprisonment in the County jail of Dade County, State of Florida, for the period of 120 days.'
Thereafter an order of contempt was entered in the following language:
'The State of Florida to D. C. Coleman, Esq., Sheriff of Dade County, State of Florida, Greeting:
'Whereas, a rule or order heretofore issued out of this court wherein and whereby the above named defendant or respondent, John D. Crews, was commanded and required to show cause before this Court on Wednesday, the 24th day of June A. D. 1936, at two o'clock in the afternoon, why he should not be adjudged in contempt of this Court because and by reason of the matters and things alleged and set forth in and by the information heretofore filed herein by the State Attorney of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida; and,
'Whereas, inasmuch as the said defendant or respondent made no denial of any of the matters and things alleged and set forth in and by the said information and made no response, answer or defense to the said rule or order, other than said denied motion; and
'Whereas, it was, by the Court, on the 25th day of June A. D. 1936, adjudged that the said defendant or respondent, John D. Crews, is guilty of contempt of this Court by reason and because of the matters and things alleged and set forth in and by the said information; and it was, by the Court, on the said last mentioned date, ordered and adjudged that for such contempt he should suffer imprisonment in the County Jail at Dade County, State of Florida, for the period of 120 days;
'Now therefore, this is to command you, D. C. Coleman, as Sheriff of Dade County, State of Florida, personally or by one of your deputies, to take into custody said defendant or respondent, John D. Crews, and commit him to the County Jail of Dade County, State of Florida, and there keep him imprisoned for the period of 120 days.'
Upon being committed, petitioner filed his petition in this court. Respondent filed his return here setting up the record of the conviction of the petitioner of contempt of court as hereinabove stated.
It is settled in this jurisdiction that habeas corpus does not lie to correct mere irregularities of procedure, where there is jurisdiction, and in order to sustain the writ, there must be illegality or want of jurisdiction. Ex parte Pitts, 35 Fla. 149, 17 So. 76; Ex parte Prince, 27 Fla. 196, 9 So. 659, 26 Am.St.Rep. 67; Ex parte Senior, 37 Fla. 1, 19 So. 652, 32 L.R.A. 133.
In 6 R.C.L. 540, it is said: 'Since a writ of habeas corpus is a collateral remedy, and as the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction upon a matter within its jurisdiction cannot be collaterally impeached, it naturally follows that in contempt proceedings, no question of jurisdiction being raised or involved, a conviction or commitment for contempt cannot be reviewed by means of this writ.' It is the contention of petitioner that because the affidavit was not made upon the personal knowledge of the prosecutor, it is not sufficient to have given the circuit court jurisdiction to determine the issue sought to be presented thereby. We cannot agree with this contention.
As has been shown by the copy of the information hereinbefore set forth, the information charges that on the 11th day of June 1936, in Dade county, Fla., one John D. Crews approached one Mrs. Olive Wofford, wife of John B. Wofford, parties defendant in a certain cause pending in a certain court of the Eleventh judicial circuit of Florida in and for Dade county, and with intent to bring this court into disrepute, spoke of and concerning the Honorable Worth W. Trammell, judge of this court, and represented and pretended to her, the said Olive Wofford, that he, the said John D. Crews, could corrupt this court and could influence the decision and judgment of the court by payment of money and did request the said Olive Wofford to pay him, the said John D. Crows, the sum of $2,400 to be delivered to the said judge of the said court as a bribe to corruptly influence the judgment and decision of the court. And it charges that this conduct on the part of him, the said John D. Crews, was willful and contentious and tended to bring this court into...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woods v. State
...the physical propinquity of the act to the court, but its tendency to directly affect the administration of justice." Ex parte Crews, 127 Fla. 381, 173 So. 275, 279 (1937). Thus, a court, in determining whether an isolated comment constitutes an imminent threat, must look not at the "veheme......
-
Forbes v. State, 4D05-1554.
...obstruct the court in the administration of justice, or which is calculated to lessen its authority or its dignity." Ex parte Crews, 127 Fla. 381, 173 So. 275, 279 (1937). We have previously explained The major purpose of the law of contempt is to maintain and preserve the dignity of the ju......
-
Weinstein, In re
...obstruct the court in the administration of justice, or which is calculated to lessen its authority or its dignity....," Ex Parte Crews, 127 Fla. 381, 173 So. 275 (1937), or as "[d]isobedience to the Court, an opposing or a despising the authority, justice, or dignity thereof," South Dade F......
-
Michaels v. Loftus
...obstruct the court in the administration of justice, or which is calculated to lessen its authority or its dignity.” Ex parte Crews, 127 Fla. 381, 173 So. 275, 279 (1937). Criminal contempt requires some willful act or omission calculated to hinder the orderly functions of the court. See Da......