Bradley v. State
| Decision Date | 10 July 1900 |
| Parties | BRADLEY v. STATE ex rel. HILL, Sol. Gen. LOONEY v. SAME. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The power to punish contempts is inherent in every court of record. If the court is created by the constitution, the legislature cannot, without express constitutional authority define what are contempts, and declare that the court shall have jurisdiction over no acts except those specified.
2. The provision of the constitution which declares that "the power of the courts to punish for contempts shall be limited by legislative acts" does not confer such authority, but only the power to prescribe the punishment after conviction. Consequently, section 4046 of the Civil Code, in so far as it seeks to limit the jurisdiction of a constitutional court to punish contempts to certain specified acts, is not binding upon such courts. They may go beyond the provisions of the statute, in order to preserve and enforce their constitutional powers, by treating as contempts, acts which clearly invade them.
3. That a given act may be indictable does not deprive a court of the power of dealing with it as a contempt of court.
Error from superior court, Fulton county; J. H. Lumpkin, Judge.
Informations by the state, on the relation of C. D. Hill, solicitor general, against W. A. Bradley and T. S. Looney, for contempt. From a judgment of conviction, they bring error. Affirmed.
King & Anderson, Lewis W. Thomas, and Rosser & Carter, for plaintiffs in error.
C. D Hill, Sol. Gen., for defendant in error.
Information under oath was filed before the judge of the superior court of the Atlanta circuit, charging Bradley and Looney with contempt of court. The specifications of the charges will be found in the official report. Neither Bradley nor Looney was an officer or juror of the court, or connected with the case on trial. Both filed demurrers on the grounds that the facts set out did not show that they were guilty of any contempt of court; that the allegations did not show that the contempt if any was committed, was in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice; that, if the facts alleged were true, they were liable to be indicted for the violation of a criminal statute. These were, in substance, the grounds of demurrer argued before this court. The court overruled the demurrers, trials were had, Bradley and Looney were adjudged in contempt, and both fines and imprisonment were imposed. To this judgment and sentence, and to the overruling of their demurrers, Bradley and Looney excepted. A separate information was filed against each, and they were tried separately, but the cases were argued together here, and we will treat them together, as they present the same questions.
The power to punish for contempts is inherent in every court of justice. It is absolutely necessary that a court should possess this power in order that it may carry on the administration of justice, and preserve order and decorum in the court. As far as we can ascertain, this power has existed since courts were first established. Judge Wilmot, in 1795 in a treatise upon the subject, said he had been unable to find where it was first exercised, but, in his opinion, it was as old as the courts themselves. All the courts in their decisions, and all the text writers, lay down the same doctrine,--that this power is necessary to all courts, and is inherent in them. It is so well established that we deem it unnecessary to cite authorities upon the subject. This power being inherent and necessary, can the legislature, by defining what are contempts, limit the courts to treating as contempts such acts only as are embraced in the legislative definition? In the formation of our government, federal and state, the three departments of government were in each constitution ordained to be separate, distinct, and independent of each other. No one of them had any right or power to infringe upon the power or jurisdiction of the other without an express constitutional provision granting this right or power. The legislature cannot take away, restrict, or modify any of the powers conferred by the constitution upon the executive. Nor can the executive infringe upon the powers of the legislature. Nor can either the legislative or executive abridge the powers conferred by the constitution upon the courts, unless express authority is given. Each of these departments represents the sovereignty of the people. Indeed, the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary are but the servants and agents of the people. To each department the people have given certain powers, and have declared that neither of the other departments shall interfere therewith. The people have intrusted these servants or agents with the duty of carrying out their will, and for that purpose, in one of these departments, they have, by their organic law, established certain courts. Among these are the superior courts. When these courts were established by the constitution, they were established with all the rights and powers possessed by all courts of record prior to that time. Among these powers was that of defining and punishing contempts of court, whether such contempts were direct--that is, committed in the presence of the court--or constructive, interfering indirectly with the administration of justice. This power was incident to the court itself, and belonged, not to the judges as individuals, but to the court. The courts established by the constitution were established by the people, and represented the majesty of the people. Whoever disobeyed an order of such a court, or was in contempt of its proceedings, or did anything which tended to impede or corrupt the administration of justice, committed a contempt against the majesty of the people. Without power and ability to preserve order and decorum, to preserve the purity of jury trial, and to enforce their own orders, and the like, courts could not carry out the wishes of the people. The courts established by the constitution were therefore vested with all these necessary powers,--powers which were, at common law, possessed by all courts of record. Whatever a court of record could, under the common law, punish as a contempt, these courts had power to deal with as a contempt. This power came to them as much as did the common law. Indeed, it is a part of the common law. 1 Bailey, Juris. § 297. When the constitutional convention established our courts, it vested in them all the power necessary to carry out the purposes for which they were designed. Such a court, established with such powers, is not, in the exercise of these powers, subject to legislative control. The superior court is a constitutional court, established with these powers, and the legislature has no right, without express constitutional authority, to abridge, restrict, or modify either its jurisdiction or its powers. 1 Bailey, Juris. § 397; State v. Morrill, 16 Ark. 384; Carter v. Com. (Va.) 32 S.E. 780, 45 L.R.A. 310; Ex parte Robinson, 19 Wall. 505, 22 L.Ed. 205; 7 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.) p. 33, and cases cited. These points were conceded by the able and learned counsel who argued these cases here, but they claimed that the constitution of this state had granted to the legislature the express power to define what are contempts, to classify them, and to take away from the courts jurisdiction to punish as contempts any act not mentioned in the statute, which is now codified as section 4046 of the Civil Code. Paragraph 20 of section 1 of article 1 of the constitution of our state (Civ. Code, § 5717), in the bill of rights, says: "The power of the courts to punish for contempts shall be limited by legislative acts." We think that neither a literal nor a liberal construction of...
To continue reading
Request your trial