Hunter v. State

Citation6 Ind. 339
PartiesHunter v. The State
Decision Date11 June 1855
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

From the Lawrence Court of Common Pleas.

The appeal is dismissed.

S. W Short, H. C. Newcomb and J. S. Harvey, for appellant.

D. C Chipman and J. W. Gordon, for the State.

OPINION

Perkins J.

Contempt of Court. Defendant fined. Appeal to this Court.

The bill of exceptions states the case thus: "Be it remembered that Lewis Rodgers, having been duly sworn, stated to the Court, on an examination in order to purge himself of a contempt of said Court, for not appearing at the last term of said Court to testify in certain cases herein pending, for maintaining a nuisance and for retailing, against said John Hunter and others, that said Hunter told witness not to come to Court; that if he was fined for not attending, it should not cost him anything; that said Hunter told him, witness, to keep out of the way; that if witness came to Court, he, said Hunter, would have him put in jail; that said Hunter told witness to leave the county; and that the statements made by said Hunter to him induced said witness to stay away from said Court, at the last term thereof. And the said Hunter, being in Court at the time, the Court asked him what he had to say about the matter. Said Hunter answered that he did not know that said witness was a witness against him, but did not admit or deny the statement made by the witness, Rodgers; and the Court having assessed a fine of 50 dollars against said Hunter, for contempt of Court in thus attempting to keep said witness, Rodgers, from attending said Court to testify against said Hunter in the aforesaid cases, the defendant, by his counsel, excepts," &c.

The appellant objects to the fine inflicted upon him, and to the mode in which he was prosecuted.

But a preliminary question arises as to the right of appeal to another tribunal in a case of contempt.

In 1822 the point was before this Court for adjudication, in the case of State v. Tipton, 1 Blackf. 166, and in giving their decision the Court say: "It is the opinion of this Court, that in these cases we have no jurisdiction. Courts of record have exclusive control over charges for contempt; and their conviction or acquittal is final and conclusive. This great power is entrusted to these tribunals of justice, for the support and preservation of their respectability and independence; it has existed from the earliest period to which the annals of jurisprudence extend; and, except in a few cases of party violence, it has been sanctioned and established by the experience of ages. Lord Mayor of London's Case, 3 Wils. 188.--Opinion of C. J. Kent, In re Yates, 4 Johns. 354.--Johnston v. Commonwealth, 1 Bibb 598."

But in 1843 the legislature enacted, (sec. 114, R. S., p. 664,) that--

"In all proceedings against an attorney and counsellor at law, wherein a judgment of any kind for a contempt or official malconduct shall be rendered against him, he may prosecute an appeal or writ of error to the Supreme Court of the state, subject to the same regulations and restrictions as are provided in regard to actions at law." See Ingle v. State, 8 Blackf. 574.

And in 1848 a case occurred which occasioned the giving of a construction to this section of the statute by the Supreme Court. The construction was, that the section applied only to cases where a lawyer had "been adjudged guilty of a contempt for some misconduct in his office." The Court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Kee v. Armstrong, Byrd & Co.
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • June 17, 1919
    ... ... of facts out of which the charge arises, or which is necessary or useful to make the charge intelligible, or, in other words, it is intended to state facts whereby the libel or slander is rendered intelligible, and is shown to contain an injurious imputation. 7. Same--"Colloquium." A "colloquium" ... ...
  • Jenkins v. Mehra
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • January 13, 2011
    ...307, 310 (1969); see Cossart v. State, 14 Ark. 538, 541–42 (1854); Cooper v. People, 13 Colo. 337, 22 P. 790, 795 (1889); Hunter v. State, 6 Ind. 339, 340 (1855); New England Novelty Co. v. Sandberg, 315 Mass. 739, 54 N.E.2d 915, 917 (1944); Masonite Corp. v. International Woodworkers of Am......
  • Kee v. Armstrong, Byrd & Co.
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • June 17, 1919
    ... ... the charge arises, or which is necessary or useful to make ... the charge intelligible, or, in other words, it is intended ... to state facts whereby the libel or slander is rendered ... intelligible, and is shown to contain an injurious ... imputation ...          [Ed ... ...
  • Peterson v. Murray
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • October 31, 1895
    ... ... , that one act of illicit sexual intercourse constitutes a woman a whore.It is true, as appellant's counsel urge, that in an early case in this state it was held by a divided court that one act of illicit sexual intercourse committed by a woman ever after rendered her a whore,-Alcorn v. Hooker, 7 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT