Emery v. State

CourtSupreme Court of Nebraska
Writing for the CourtBARNES
Citation78 Neb. 547,111 N.W. 374
Decision Date21 March 1907
PartiesEMERY v. STATE.

78 Neb. 547
111 N.W. 374

EMERY
v.
STATE.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

March 21, 1907.



Syllabus by the Court.

Where the charge of contempt of court is set forth in an information in positive and direct terms, the statement by the public prosecutor, in his verification thereto, “that the allegations and charges in the within information are true, as he verily believes,” does not render such information void.

One cannot object to a verification of a complaint or information after he has been arraigned and pleaded not guilty, unless such plea has been withdrawn, and an objection of that kind, made for the first time in a motion for a new trial, comes too late.

All willful attempts, of whatever nature, seeking to improperly influence jurors in the impartial discharge of their duties, whether it be by conversations or discussions, or attempts to bribe, constitute contempts.

In a prosecution for contempt, where the act complained of is in itself a contempt of court, a denial on oath of its commission raises an issue of fact for trial, and does not entitle the accused to an acquittance.


Error to District Court, Gage County; Raper, Judge.

George E. Emery was found guilty of contempt, and brings error. Affirmed.

[111 N.W. 374]

R. W. Sabin, A. Hazlett, and S. Rinaker, for plaintiff in error.

S. D. Killen and L. M. Pemberton, for the State.


BARNES, J.

George E. Emery, hereafter called the accused, prosecutes error from a judgment of the district court of Gage county, by which he was found guilty of a contempt of court, and adjudged to pay a fine of $25 and the costs of the prosecution. The complaint or information on which he was prosecuted charged him with an attempt to influence a member of the jury in a certain civil action, which was being tried in the district court of that county, on the 13th day of September, 1905. His plea or answer to the charge was: First, not guilty; and, second, a general denial.

His first contention is that the complaint or information is void because the charge contained therein was made upon information and belief only. An examination of the record discloses that in the charging part of the complaint the facts are stated positively, directly, and without equivocation, and the verification reads as follows: “S. D. Killen, being first duly sworn upon his oath, says that he is the county attorney in and for Gage county, in the First judicial district of the state of Nebraska, and that the allegations and charges against George E. Emery, in the within information, are true as he verily believes. * * *” It appears that this is the usual manner of verifying criminal informations in this jurisdiction. The accused, however, cites a number of authorities in support of his contention, but they seem to be beside the mark, and apply to cases where the charge in the body of the complaint was made on information and belief only. It appears that the complaint in this case is sufficiently positive and certain in its charging part, and the fault, if any, lies in the verification. But this defect, if it be such, was waived, for we find that the accused made no objection to the complaint, but filed his answer of not guilty, together with a general denial, and immediately announced his readiness to proceed to trial. In fact the record shows that this question was raised for the first time by him in his motion for a new trial. The objection, therefore, comes too late, for one cannot object to the verification of a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 practice notes
  • State ex rel. Attorney Gen. v. Owens, Case Number: 18081
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • May 24, 1927
    ...able to find on the very question here before us, namely, how must an information by a public prosecutor be verified, is Emery v. State, 78 Neb. 547, 111 N.W. 374, 9 L.R.A. (N. S.) 1124. The defendant was charged with influencing a juror in a criminal case in which he was a party by agreein......
  • Wilson v. Joughin
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • April 26, 1932
    ...the conduct constituted contempt. See United States v. Shipp, 203 U.S. 563, 27 S.Ct. 165, 51 L.Ed. 319, 8 Ann. Cas. 265; Emery v. State, 78 Neb. 547, 111 N.W. 374, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1124; O'Flynn v. State, 89 Miss. 850, 43 So. 82, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1119, 119 Am. St. Rep. 727, 11 Ann. Cas.......
  • Creekmore v. United States, 4591.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • October 17, 1916
    ...v. District Court, 37 Mont. 590, 97 P. 1032. To the same effect, as applied to an information by a public prosecutor, is Emery v. State, 78 Neb. 547, 111 N.W. 374, 9 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1124. It thus appears that California, Iowa, Nebraska, Montana, and Arizona are all committed to the theory of ......
  • State ex rel. Gossett v. O'Grady, No. 30819.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • April 5, 1940
    ...v. State, 53 Neb. 103, 73 N.W. 463;Davis v. State, 31 Neb. 247, 47 N.W. 854;Richards v. State, 22 Neb. 145, 34 N.W. 346;Emery v. State, 78 Neb. 547, 111 N.W. 374, 9 L.R.A.,N.S., 1124; Guignon v. State, 101 Neb. 587, 163 N.W. 858;Tasich v. State, 111 Neb. 465, 196 N.W. 688. [9] It is also a ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
22 cases
  • State ex rel. Attorney Gen. v. Owens, Case Number: 18081
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • May 24, 1927
    ...able to find on the very question here before us, namely, how must an information by a public prosecutor be verified, is Emery v. State, 78 Neb. 547, 111 N.W. 374, 9 L.R.A. (N. S.) 1124. The defendant was charged with influencing a juror in a criminal case in which he was a party by agreein......
  • Wilson v. Joughin
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • April 26, 1932
    ...the conduct constituted contempt. See United States v. Shipp, 203 U.S. 563, 27 S.Ct. 165, 51 L.Ed. 319, 8 Ann. Cas. 265; Emery v. State, 78 Neb. 547, 111 N.W. 374, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1124; O'Flynn v. State, 89 Miss. 850, 43 So. 82, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1119, 119 Am. St. Rep. 727, 11 Ann. Cas.......
  • Creekmore v. United States, 4591.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • October 17, 1916
    ...v. District Court, 37 Mont. 590, 97 P. 1032. To the same effect, as applied to an information by a public prosecutor, is Emery v. State, 78 Neb. 547, 111 N.W. 374, 9 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1124. It thus appears that California, Iowa, Nebraska, Montana, and Arizona are all committed to the theory of ......
  • State ex rel. Gossett v. O'Grady, No. 30819.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • April 5, 1940
    ...v. State, 53 Neb. 103, 73 N.W. 463;Davis v. State, 31 Neb. 247, 47 N.W. 854;Richards v. State, 22 Neb. 145, 34 N.W. 346;Emery v. State, 78 Neb. 547, 111 N.W. 374, 9 L.R.A.,N.S., 1124; Guignon v. State, 101 Neb. 587, 163 N.W. 858;Tasich v. State, 111 Neb. 465, 196 N.W. 688. [9] It is also a ......
  • 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