Cheadle v. State

• Decision Date: 05 April 1887
• Citation: 11 N.E. 426,110 Ind. 301
• Parties: Cheadle v. State.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

110 Ind. 301

11 N.E. 426

Cheadle

v.State.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

April 5, 1887.

Appeal from circuit court, Clinton county.

Information for contempt.

J. G. Adams and W. R. Stokes, for appellant. W. A. Staley, for the State.

NIBLACK, J.

On the fourteenth day of December, 1885, the prosecuting attorney of the Forty-fifth judicial circuit filed in the Clinton circuit court an information, supported by his oath, charging that Joseph B. Cheadle was the editor and proprietor of a newspaper of general circulation, known as the “Frankfort Banner,” printed and published in the county of Clinton, in this state, and that there was then pending and undisposed of in said court a cause entitled “ The State of Indiana against James A. Spurlock,” in which the defendantSpurlock was charged with an assault and battery with intent to commit murder; that the said Spurlock was then confined in the jail of the said county upon the charge so pending against him; that the said Cheadle did, on the twelfth day of December, 1885, print and publish in his said newspaper, at the city of Frankfort, in which said court was then in session, a certain false, scurrilous, and malicious article concerning said cause, and the court in which, and judge before whom, the same was pending, as follows:

“a joke on a judge.

One of the cases that has taken up the attention of the court this week is that of the State v. James A. Spurlock for an assault with intent to kill. The case was called, a jury impaneled, and the prisoner was arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and the state had nearly concluded its evidence when the court adjourned Wednesday night. Mr. Spurlock said he must go home; his attorneys urged and insisted that he must remain. Finally he told them that it was absolutely necessary for him to go; that he had no money with which to pay his hotel fare, and he must go, but that he would be back by eight o'clock in the morning, and he went. He went and overslept himself, and did not get back in time. The case was called at the usual time for opening court, and the trial proceeded. After a while the judge noticed that the defendant was not present, and asked where he was. The attorneys informed the court of the facts, and asked that the case proceed, notifying the court that they would waive all questions that might arise until he came in, but the court said: ‘No, we will wait awhile;’ and it did. Spurlock had overslept himself, and did not get an early start, and the road was rough, and, as he had to walk, made slow progress, but all the time he was coming with the perspiration streaming from every pore; yet the court could not know these facts, and became restive. Senator Kent, who had faith in Spurlock's return, begged for time. Bristow, majestic in size and strong in the confidence of his client, said: ‘Your honor, there is good cause for his absence; he will surely come.’ D. J. McMath, quiet and firm, urged delay, and said he knew Spurlock would not desert him. The judge lost his temper,-lost it bad,-and intimated that the attorneys had spirited him away. Kent arose wrathfully, yet calm, and in a dignified manner informed his honor that his client had gone home against his advice, and over his protest, and that his honor had no right to expect him as attorney to handcuff and imprison his clients in order to keep them in court. Then came a talk about the bond, and the judge declared it was of no value; and in the meantime poor Spurlock was walking for life to reach the court-house. More words between the counsel and the judge, more intimations that they were responsible, and all the time the judge became more nervous. Finally the attorneys concluded that Spurlock might have gone, and all the time Spurlock, like Sheridan, less than three miles away, and walking for life.

The judge read the attorneys a lecture; they apologized. The state attorney assured the court that he had the fullest confidence in the statements of the attorneys for the prisoner on trial, and yet the court could not see poor Spurlock in his famous walk less than two and a half miles away. Having been accused wrongfully, the attorneys for the prisoner decided to withdraw from the case, and did so. At this point the court called the jury, thanked them for their courtesy, and discharged them, and ordered the sheriff to call the defendant, and his bondsmen on the recognizance bond, and, as the sheriff shouted, ‘Bring in the body of James A. Spurlock, and save your recognizance,’ away over the hills to the east, and stepping just three feet and two inches to the step, with every muscle strained to the highest tension, and walking for life, came James A. Spurlock, only two miles away, in his now famous walk to the court-house, December 10, 1885.

Having discharged the jury, forfeited the bond, the judge had a benchwarrantissued, and instructed the sheriff to go quickly and be prepared for business, and to bring into his presence the body of James A. Spurlock, not to spare expense, and that the court would foot the bill; and then there was ‘hurrying to and fro,’ deputies ‘to the right of him,’ deputies ‘in front of him,’ deputies ‘behind him,’ deputies ‘to the left of him.’ How grandly marched these deputies into the vortex of danger, all of them into the counties' purse rode they; while just beyond the city limits, with rapid pace and earnest face, all unconscious of the affray, marched in broad daylight, down a public road, Spurlock, the hunted. No one can tell just what mysterious path the deputies pursued, nor what momentous questions puzzled the brain of attorneys and judge, while through the open gates of the city came, all covered with dust and with bated breath, Spurlock, the hunted. He paused not at the iron bridge; the public square he crossed; and into the court-house he went, through its great broad corridors he strode, up the stairway and into the court-room, unmindful of the fact that everywhere there were hurrying steps, and mounted deputies armed to the teeth, scouring the country far and near for Spurlock, the hunted. He quietly sought his chair near by the place where the jury, solemn and quiet, sat but yesterday. He looked in vain for jury and judge, for attorneys and friends; but, alas! there were none; and so sat Spurlock for quite a while, wondering what could have sent them away. After a time he sought and found his attorneys, and a scene ensued. Finally a deputy approached him meekly, and asked if he was ready. ‘Ready for what?’ said Spurlock. ‘Ready to go to jail.’ The ignorant fellow said he did not know what he was to go to jail for, neither does any one else; but they marched him there. His attorneys prepared the papers to take him out on a writ of habeas corpus; and, when they went to the jail to have him swear to them, he still did not know that he was arrested. The judge granted the writ, and set the trial down for next Monday. The Banner will ask why is this man kept in jail until next Monday? There is no more authority for putting this man in jail than there is the president. He was on trial, in jeopardy. He went home because he had no other place to go,-no money to buy a place to stay. He overslept himself, and did not reach the court-house in time. His attorneys pleaded to let the trial go on. The court no doubt thought it a ruse, and finally discharged the jury. When he did that, at that moment Spurlock stood acquitted, the bond became inoperative, and the forfeiture of the recognizance was absolutely void, and his incarceration in jail illegal. It is simply an outrage to keep him there. No matter how guilty he may have been, he stands free, and it is no fault of his,-no fault of his attorneys. He was not trying to get away, but walked nearly fifteen miles hurriedly to get back to his trial. The Banner, on behalf of all the people, denounces his incarceration in jail, and begs the court to obey the law and set him free. The people have just as much right to put the judge in jail as he had to order Spurlock sent to jail. This is the law, and the law should be obeyed.”

The information further charged that the publication of said article interruptedand embarrassed the proceedings in the cause to which it related, and the administration of justice in said court; imputing, as it did, to the court, and to the judge thereof, wrongful, dishonest, and corrupt conduct in causing the imprisonment of Spurlock as stated; also that said article contained many falsehoods and gross inaccuracies; that what was said in relation to the conduct of the sheriff and his deputies in rearresting Spurlock was false, as was also the statement that the sheriff made no effort to rearrest Spurlock until he came into the court-room; that the statement that the judge intimated that the attorneys for Spurlock had spirited him away, that the judge declared that Spurlock's bond was of no value, that the judge read the attorneys a lecture and they apologized, that Spurlock's attorneys begged that the trial might go on, and that the judge lost his temper bad, were all also false; that said article contained many other false and defamatory statements, which tended to defeat the punishment of criminals, to degrade the court, and to bring the enforcement of the law into disrepute. Wherefore it was further charged that Cheadle had been guilty of a willful contempt of the authority of the court.

A rule was thereupon granted against Cheadle to show cause why he should not be attached and punished for the supposed contempt so committed by him. Cheadle, appearing, moved to discharge the rule for the alleged insufficiency of the facts upon which it had been entered; but his motion was overruled. No final action upon the rule having in the mean time been taken against him, Cheadle, on the sixteenth and nineteenth days of said month of December, 1885, respectively, published additional articles in his newspaper, as follows: “James A. Spurlock was still in jail this...