Dahnke v. People

• Decision Date: 01 November 1897
• Citation: 48 N.E. 137,168 Ill. 102
• Parties: DAHNKE v. PEOPLE.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

168 Ill. 102

48 N.E. 137

DAHNKE

v.PEOPLE.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 1, 1897.

Error to appellate court, First district.

Contempt proceedings against Christ W. Dahnke. A judgment against him was affirmed by the appellate court (57 Ill. App. 619), and he brings error. Affirmed.

Robert S. Iles, for plaintiff in error.

S. P. Shope, for the People.

This was a proceeding against the plaintiff in error in the superior court of Cook county for contempt in interfering with the use of one of the court rooms in the court house of Cook county by Judge Henry V. Freeman, one of the judges of the superior court of said county. Notice was given to plaintiff in error of an application for a wirt of attachment for criminal contempt, based upon an affidavit showing the facts in regard to such interference. A writ of attachment was issued, and plaintiff in error was arrested. On December 8, 1894, an order of court was entered, showing that the sheriff had brought plaintiff in error into court, and ordering that the attorney for the people should forthwith file interrogatories to be propounded to the plaintiff in error. Such interrogatories were filed, and answers thereto made by the plaintiff in error. Upon filing such answers, plaintiff in error moved to be discharged as purged of contempt. The court found plaintiff in error guilty of contempt, and overruled the motion for discharge, and fined him $50, and ordered that he stand committed to the custody of the sheriff until the fine was paid. The judgment imposing this fine was taken by writ of error to the appellate court, and there affirmed. The present writ of error was then sued out from this court for the purpose of reviewing such judgment of affirmance entered by the appellate court.

The facts as they appear from the affidavits filed and the answers to the interrogatories are substantially as follows: It appears that, since 1891, the board of county commissioners of Cook county has assumed control of the court house in that county, and appointed a custodian therefor. The plaintiff in error was, at the time of the contempt charged against him, holding the position of such custodian. There are a number of court rooms in the court house in said county, prepared for the use of the judges of the superior and circuit courts of Cook county, who are of equal dignity, and have the same jurisdiction. There are about 23 of such judges who hold court in said court rooms; and, in view of the number of judges and the limited number of court rooms, it has happened that there is not a sufficient number of court rooms in the court house to accommodate said judges with separate court rooms. Hence there are times when one or more of said judges are without court rooms in said court house. It appears that the county board have assumed to assign the court rooms in the court house to the various judges of said courts. On September 17, 1894, Judge McConnell, of the circuit court, who had been occupying court room No. 421, left that room for the purpose of holding criminal court in the criminal court building, which is a separate building from that in which the civil courts are held. Upon such vacation of the room by Judge McConnell, Judge Freeman, of the superior court of Cook county, took possession of said room 421, although the same had not been assigned to him by the county board, and occupied it for the purpose of holding his court therein, and continued so to occupy it until November 5, 1894, when the occurrences hereinafter mentioned took place. In the meantime, and on October 15, 1894, the county board assigned said room 421 to Judge Windes, of the circuit court, room 207 to Judge Haency, of the circuit court, and room 327 to Judge Freeman, of the superior court, to be used by him temporarily, until another judge, who was holding criminal court, should return from the criminal court building to take up his civil docket. Before the order of October 15th was entered by the county board, and on or about October, 1, 1894, Judge McConnell resigned his position as judge in the circuit court. On November 5, 1894, Judge Freeman was holding court in the court room No. 421, and hearing a chancery cause therein. On the evening of that day, by order entered of record, he adjourned said court until 10 o'clock a. m. on November 7, 1894; November 6th having been the day of the general election. When court adjourned, the files in the cause on hearing, and in other causes pending in said court, as well as the memorandum papers of the judge, were in said court room No. 421. In the interval between the adjournment of the court on the evening of November 5th and the hour of 10 o'clock on the morning of November 7th the plaintiff in error, acting under the directions of the county board, changed the locks on the doors of said court room 421; and on the memorandum papers of the judge, were in Judge Freeman, and the sheriff and his bailiffs attending the court, and the attorneys, parties, and witnesses interested in the cause on hearing, to enter said court room. By this conduct the judge, and the officers of his court, and the witnesses, attorneys, and parties interested in the cause on hearing, although in attendance and ready to proceed with such cause, were unable to gain admission to the court room. The plaintiff in error, acting under such order of the county board, declared that the session of said court should not be held in such room. The plaintiff in error, as custodian as aforesaid, had been directed by the county board to remove the property of Judge Freeman from room 421, and turn over said room 421 to another judge. In view of this conduct of plaintiff in error as such custodian, the bailiffs in attendance upon Judge Freeman's court threatened to break into said court room; and thereupon the plaintiff in error unlocked the doors thereof, and allowed such bailiffs to take possession until he could report to the county board, and ask further instructions.

MAGRUDER, J. (after stating the facts).

1. The first question which arises in this case is this: Was the conduct of the plaintiff in error in locking the door of the court room during the period of adjournment, and refusing to allow the judge of the court, and his officers, and the parties to the suit on hearing before him, to enter the court room, a contempt? In Stuart v. People, 3 Scam. 395, we held that the power was inherent in every court of justice to defend itself when attacked, just as much as the individual man has a right to defend himself for his own preservation; and we also there held that in the power to punish for contempt are necessarily ‘included all acts calculated to impede, embarrass, or obstruct the court in the administration of justice. Such acts will be considered as done in the presence of the court.’ The doctrine of the Stuart Case was reaffirmed in People v. Wilson, 64 Ill. 195. The conduct of the plaintiff in error was certainly such as was calculated to obstruct the court in the administration of justice. Rapalje, in his work on Contempt (at section 22), classifies, among contempts which are direct, those which are committed within the presence of the court while in session, ‘or so near to the court as to interrupt its proceedings.’ It is true that the acts of the plaintiff in error were not performed while the court was actually in session; but, having been performed during the brief adjournment of the court from one session to another, and having had the effect of preventing the judge of the court from gaining access to his court room, they may be regarded as being so near to the court as to interrupt its proceedings. ‘Courts of justice have an inherent power to punish all persons for contempt of their rules and orders, for disobedience of their process, and for disturbing them in their proceedings.’ 3 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, p. 780. There can be no doubt that the conduct of plaintiff in error here disturbed and interfered with the court in its proceedings, and while it was engaged in the administration of justice. Contempt of court is a despising of the authority, justice, or dignity of the court. He is guilty of such contempt whose conduct is such as ‘tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or disregard, or to interfere with or prejudice parties litigant, or their witnesses during the litigations.’ Oswald, Contempt, pp. 3, 4. ‘Any conduct which is calculated to interfere with the proceedings, by assaulting litigants or witnesses within the precincts of the court, or preventing or hindering, or endeavoring to prevent or hinder, them in their access to the court or otherwise, is a contempt.’ Id. p. 27. It has been said that the power of the court in the matter of contempt cannot be defined within any limits, and that the primary question in all cases of alleged contempt is ‘whether there has or has not been an interference or an attempt to interfere with the due administration of justice.’ Id. p. 70. Applying the definition of ‘contempt’ as thus laid down to the facts of this case, we are of the opinion that there was here a contempt of court, which the judge was justified in punishing, if the facts hereinafter set forth do not constitute a sufficient excuse or justification for the conduct of the plaintiff in error.

2. It is claimed that the county board had a right to assign the different court rooms in the court house to the different judges of the circuit and superior courts of Cook county; that each one of such judges was bound to occupy the particular court room so assigned to him; that room 421, though in the actual occupancy of Judge Freeman, had, while he was so occupying it, been assigned to another judge; that Judge Freeman had been assigned to occupy court room 327; that, therefore, the county board had the right and power to order plaintiff in error, as their custodian, to remove Judge Freeman's property from room 421 to room 327, and to prevent...