Arnold v. The Commonwealth

Citation80 Ky. 300
PartiesArnold v. The Commonwealth.
Decision Date30 May 1882
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky

APPEAL FROM JESSAMINE CIRCUIT COURT.

P. B. THOMPSON FOR APPELLANT.

P. W. HARDIN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, FOR APPELLEE.

JUDGE PRYOR DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.

In August, 1880, during the progress of a trial in the Jessamine circuit court, under an indictment against James H. Arnold for murder, the appellant, Isaac H. Arnold, with force and arms, and in open court, obstructed the proceedings in the case, and was committed to the jail of Jessamine county to await the action of the grand jury. On the next day a rule was issued against the appellant, requiring him to show cause why he should not be fined and imprisoned, or both, at the discretion of a jury, for the contempt of hindering and obstructing the court and its proceedings by forcibly assaulting the attorney for the Commonwealth while engaged in open court in the discharge of his official duties.

The appellant appeared, pleaded not guilty, and the jury empaneled to try the issue said he was guilty, and fixed his punishment by a fine of $1,000, and imprisonment for 12 months. After going to jail he replevied the fine as authorized by the statute, and, execution having issued on the replevin bond, upon a written notice to the attorney for the Commonwealth, he moved to quash the replevin bond and the execution —

First. Because the rule issued was in violation of article 4, section 5, of the constitution, not being in the name of and by the authority of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and against the peace and dignity of the same.

Second. The judgment is void under article 13, section 13, of the constitution, because no indictment was found by the grand jury against him.

Third. Because the replevin bond is made to bear interest.

As to the first ground relied on, it is sufficient to say that a mere rule for contempt or orders emanating from a court during the progress of a trial are not required to issue in the name of the Commonwealth, and we are aware of no law, constitutional or otherwise, requiring such proceedings to show anything more, so far as the style of the proceeding is concerned, than that it was issued by authority of the court in which the proceedings are to be had, and against the party required to answer. The solution of the entire question depends, however, upon the disposition made of the second objection urged by counsel, viz: that the appellant should have been first indicted by a grand jury of the county where the offense was committed. That the assault made upon the attorney for the commonwealth was an offense at the common law cannot be denied, but we do not understand that this is the gravamen of the offense, but it consists in the contempt offered the court by making the assault during the progress of the trial.

It is conceded that the court has the inherent power to punish by fine and imprisonment for such a contempt, and it might be added the legislature has no power to take from a court the power to protect itself against such flagrant contempt as was offered the court in this particular case; and to sanction the exercise of such legislative action would, in effect, defeat the administration of justice, and particularly in cases where the commonwealth is seeking a conviction for the violation of its penal or criminal laws. The exercise of such a power by the judicial tribunals of the country is essential not only in the attempt to enforce the laws for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Levisa Stone Corp. v. Hays
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • June 14, 1968
    ......159, 109 S.W.2d 402.         The accepted distinction between civil and criminal contempts is thus quoted in Jones v. Commonwealth, 308 Ky. 233, 213 S.W.2d 983, 985:. 'Civil contempts are those quasi contempts which consist in failure to do something which the contemnor is ... That the judiciary does have such an inherent power is hardly open to question. 17 Am.Jur.2d, section 62 (page 62); Arnold v. Commonwealth, 80 Ky. 300, 44 Am.Rep. 480, 3 Ky.Law Rep. 784; Crook v. Schumann, 292 Ky. 750, 167 S.W.2d 836; Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. ......
  • Ex parte Creasy
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 10, 1912
    ......174;. Swafford v. Berrong, 84 Ga. 65; Little v. State, 90 Ind. 338; Stewart v. State, 140 Ind. 7; In re Millington, 24 Kan. 214; Arnold v. Comm., 80 Ky. 300; State v. St. Paul, 104 La. 203; Langdon v. Judges, 76 Mich. 358; Sloman v. Judges, 95 Mich. 264; State ex rel. v. ......
  • Melton v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • November 5, 1914
    ...... on the subject, the contempt consisted of some indignity. committed against the judge or the court, or interference. with its proceedings or processes, or grew out of the. misconduct of some officer of the court. Philips & Walker. v. Harriss, 3 J. J. Marsh. 122, 19 Am.Dec. 166;. Arnold v. Commonwealth, 80 Ky. 300, 44 Am.Rep. 480;. In re Woolley, 11 Bush, 95; French v. Commonwealth, 97 S.W. 427, 30 Ky. Law Rep. 98;. Gordon v. Commonwealth, 141 Ky. 461, 133 S.W. 206;. Richardson v. Commonwealth, 141 Ky. 497, 133 S.W. 213. In some of these cases the proceedings were ......
  • Arnett v. Meade
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • January 22, 1971
    ......        Roger B. Sledd, Lexington, Edward F. Prichard, Jr., Frankfort, for petitioner.         George E. Barker, Commonwealth's Atty., Lexington, for respondent. Page 942.         CULLEN, Commissioner.         Judge N. Mitchell Meade of the Fayette Circuit ... That the judiciary does have such an inherent power is hardly open to question. 17 Am.Jur.2d, section 62 (page 62); Arnold v. Commonwealth, 80 Ky. 300, 44 Am.Rep. 480, 3 Ky.Law Rep. 784; Crook v. Schumann, 292 Ky. 750, 167 S.W.2d 836; Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. ......
  • 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