Clark v. State, 35226
| Decision Date | 07 July 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 35226,35226,2 |
| Citation | 83 S.E.2d 45,90 Ga.App. 330 |
| Parties | CLARK v. STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Frank M. Gleason, Rossville, for plaintiff in error.
Earl B. Self, Sol. Gen., Summerville, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
On March 29, 1954, the Superior Court of Dade County issued a rule nisi directed to Sanders Clark to show cause before the court in Dade County Courthouse on April 1, 1954, at 5 o'clock p. m., why he should not be adjudged to be in criminal contempt of the court on the basis of the following affidavit of Roy McBryar: '* * * I was a member of the March-term grand jury in and for Dade County, which convened on March 15, 1954, and that during the time the Grand Jury was in session Sanders Clark approached * * * [me] with reference to a bill which the grand jury had acted upon, and that on Wednesday, March 17, 1954, immediately upon adjournment of the grand jury for the day and as I was leaving the Dade County Courthouse, I noticed Sanders Clark waiting on the courthouse steps where he mumbled something to me about running the grand jury and something about lies and slander and at that time he hit me and continued to hit me some three or four times, the exact number being unknown to me, and caused the following injuries to me: bursted lip, black eye, sore nose, and cut above the black eye.' Clark's motion for a continuance was denied. His general and special demurrers to the affidavit were overruled. Upon his trial he was adjudged in contempt and fined. In the present writ of error he assigns error upon each of those judgments.
1. 'The powers of the several courts to issue attachments and inflict summary punishment for contempt of court shall extend only to cases of misbehavior of any person or persons in the presence of said courts or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice'. Code, § 24-105.
2. Contempt of court may be either civil or criminal, Davis v. Davis, 138 Ga. 8, 74 S.E. 830, and criminal contempt, with which we are here concerned, may be either direct or indirect. In re Fite, 11 Ga.App. 665, 76 S.E. 397. A direct criminal contempt relates to contumacious conduct, whether by word or deed, committed in the actual presence of the court. An indirect, or constructive contempt, consists of contumacious conduct outside the presence of the court which amounts to an obstruction of the administration of justice. Townsend v. State of Georgia, 54...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wood v. State
...216 Ga. 399, 116 S.E.2d 580; McGill v. State, 209 Ga. 500(1), 74 S.E.2d 78; Adams v. State, 89 Ga.App. 882, 81 S.E.2d 507; Clark v. State, 90 Ga.App. 330, 83 S.E.2d 45; Vines v. State, 69 Ga.App. 175, 24 S.E.2d 864; and Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 62 S.Ct. 190, 86 L.Ed. 192, that t......
-
Brookins, In re
...the court.' Davis v. Davis, 138 Ga. 8(1-b), 74 S.E. 830." Vines v. State, 69 Ga.App. 175, 177, 24 S.E.2d 864, 865; Clark v. State, 90 Ga.App. 330(2), 83 S.E.2d 45; Farmer v. Holton, 146 Ga.App. 102, 245 S.E.2d 457. It is clear that the alleged contemnor's conduct did not violate the proscri......
-
City of Macon v. Massey
...of Townsend v. State, 54 Ga.App. 627, 188 S.E. 560; Adams v. State of Georgia, 89 Ga.App. 882, 81 S.E.2d 507; and Clark v. State of Georgia, 90 Ga.App. 330, 83 S.E.2d 45, are not in point on their facts with the present case, land do not support the ruling by the Court of The time has not y......
- Waters v. State, 35231