State Of West Va. v. FREW
Decision Date | 07 July 1884 |
Parties | STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA v. FREW & HART. |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
State of West Virginia v. Frew & Hart.
1. Where a contempt is not committed in open court, the usual course is to issue a rule to show cause why an attachment should not issue, though the attachment sometimes issues in the first instance, (p. 438, 471.)
2. Such rule is usually based in cases of constructive contempt on an affidavit or other sworn statement of the facts constituting the alleged contempt, but this is not always essential. The Court may act on its own information or on the unsworn statement of a member of the bar in cases where the facts are clear and unmistakable, such as contemptuous publications in a newspaper, (p. 471.)
3. Where the rule has issued on an unsworn statement of counsel, though it may be defective in form or substance, yet if the defendant appears and answers admitting facts sufficient to constitute the offence alleged against him, the Court will not regard objections to the proceedings for the want of an affidavit or sworn statement or on account of defects in the rule, though the objection is made in the answer, (p. 472.)
4. The Supreme Court of Appeals of this State has the constitutional power to punish, as for contempt, the publication of a libel on the Court or the judges thereof acting in their judicial capacity, made during the term of the Court, with reference to a case then pending and undecided. (p. 457.)
5. The power to summarily punish contempts is inherent in all constitutional courts, springing into existence upon their creation as a necessary incident to the exercise of the powers conferred upon them, and applies as well to constructive as to direct contempts. (p. 457.)
6. The act of the Virginia Legislature of 1831 in reference to punishment for contempts of courts, which has been handed down through successive Codes and is now found in chapter 147 of the Code of this State, was not intended to apply and does not apply to the Supreme Court of Appeals. (p. 465.)
7. In this State the power of the Supreme Court of Appeals to punish summarily both direct and constructive contempts is the same as exists at common law. (p. 465.)
8. A publication in a newspaper in the city, where the Supreme Court of Appeals is sitting, with reference to a case then pending and undetermined, charging three of the four judges of the Court with attending a political caucus more than a year before, and in the caucus advising the action, oat of which the case arose, and promising the caucus to hold its action legal and proper, and charging the Court with agreeing to decide the case before an approaching political convention for political purposes is a contempt of said Court, which it may summarily punish, (p. 466.)
Johnson, President, furnishes the following statement of the case:
On the 24th day of June, 1884, Henry M. Russell, a member of the bar of this Court, presented the following communication:
Thereupon the Court issued the following rule against the defendants, returnable on Saturday, June 28:
On the said 28th day of June the defendants appeared and severally filed their answers to said rule.
The return of the rule shows that A. W. Campbell was not at home, and had been absent from the State for months. The rule was discharged therefore as to him.
John Frew filed his answer as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Toledo Newspaper Co.
... ... understood by ordinary readers, the state of public feeling ... on the subject-matter of the publication, and any other ... relevant matter ... attachable contempt, such as the important case of State ... v. Frew, 24 W.Va. 416, 49 Am.Rep. 257, are not valuable ... as authority, so we consider some of those ... ...
-
Hendershot v. Handlan
...the latitude afforded courts in certain circumstances is the following language of the Court in Point 1, Syllabus of State of West Virginia v. Frew and Hart, 24 W.Va. 416 (1884), "Where a contempt is not committed in open court, the usual course is to issue a rule to show cause why an attac......
-
Van Dyke v. Superior Court of Gila County
... ... petition. From the allegations of the petition we state so ... much of the facts as are necessary to present the questions ... involved ... On ... approval the following language from State v ... Frew, 24 W.Va. 416, 49 Am. Rep. 257: [24 Ariz. 524] ... "Courts, therefore, look with ... ...
-
Hendershot v. Hendershot
...indirect contempt summarily and the right of lower courts to punish contempt summarily as limited by statutory provisions. State v. Frew & Hart, 24 W.Va. 416 (1884). In addition to relying on Cottrill, supra, as precedent in this jurisdiction for the principle that a defendant in criminal c......