Ex Parte O'Brien
Citation | 127 Mo. 477,30 S.W. 158 |
Parties | Ex parte O'BRIEN. |
Decision Date | 18 March 1895 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Thos. B. Harvey and Chester H. Krum, for petitioner. Martin & Bass, for respondent.
The petitioner herein has sued out a writ of habeas corpus, and questions thereby the validity of certain proceedings had in the St. Louis court of criminal correction on the 21st of December, 1894. Those proceedings had their origin in an attempt made by one Thomas Murphy, a policeman, on the complaint of Henry Roetter, to arrest one William Wright, a negro, on a charge of carrying a revolver and disturbing the peace. On attempting the arrest, the negro shot Murphy with the revolver, once through the shoulder and once through the side, and so dangerously that for some days his life was despaired of. The shooting occurred on November 19, 1894. Wright fled for it, but was captured the next night in Illinois, and brought back to this state. When it became evident that his victim would not die, a charge of assault with intent to kill was preferred against Wright; and when Murphy, weak from his wounds that had so well nigh proved fatal, was able to attend the preliminary hearing of Wright, that hearing was set for December 19, 1894, in the court of criminal correction. Of the result attending that hearing, it is perhaps not improper to say that the ready facility with which Wright was discharged is in striking contrast with the action of the grand jury in indicting Wright on the same day for the same felonious assault on Murphy, from which charge Wright had just been discharged by the court of criminal correction. On the discharge of Wright, he walked out of the court room, and, when outside of the swinging doors of the court room, was arrested by relator on the old charge on which Murphy had previously attempted his arrest when Wright shot him. Assisted by his brother officer, Sullivan, petitioner managed to take Wright down stairs, to prison. This arrest, and other incidents happening in immediate connection therewith, were made the occasion of a great deal of noise and disturbance on the outside of the court room; but the great preponderance of the evidence, as contained in the depositions taken in this cause, satisfies us that the arrest occurred at a point as indicated in the accompanying diagram, beyond the range of the personal knowledge or vision of any one in the court room. Not only was this the case by reason of the locality where the arrest occurred, but by reason of two other significant facts, to wit, that the doors of the court room were closed, and had been closed by the order of the court, except when momentarily swung open by the throng of persons passing out, and that the hallway or rotunda on the outside of the court room was filled with a surging crowd of whites and negroes, some of whom tried to rescue Wright from the police officers, and some of whom tried to assault him; that, owing to these circumstances, it was impossible for those in the court room to tell what was going on in the rotunda, as is shown, not only in the manner already indicated, but, inferentially, by the inquiries made of others by the judge of the court of criminal correction, on the day of the disturbance, as to who the parties were who caused that disturbance, and by threats that, did he know who they were, he would "fine them heavily," etc., and finally by his visiting the negro Wright in jail on the 20th or 21st of December, and inquiring of him who were the parties, etc. Moreover, it is shown without contradiction that the judge of the court of criminal correction is extremely nearsighted, and unable to distinguish objects, except when quite close to his visual organs. On the 21st of December the judge of that court ordered the chief deputy clerk, Fitzgerald, to issue commitments against the petitioner, as well as two other police officers, — Thomas Dewar and Thomas Murphy, — for alleged contempt of the court, committed on the 19th day of December. These commitments were alike in form, the one against petitioner being as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Russell v. Highway Commission, 30923.
......Rippee v. Forrest, 177 Mo. App. 245; State ex inf. Barrett v. Imhoff, 238 S.W. 122; State ex rel. Mayor v. Wood, 233 Mo. 357; Ex parte O'Brien, 127 Mo. 477; Eaton v. St. Charles Co., 76 Mo. 492; Schell v. Leland, 45 Mo. 289; Daugherty v. Matthews, 35 Mo. 520, 88 Am. Dec. 126; State ......
-
State ex Inf. McKittrick v. Wymore, 35738.
......Stewart, 32 Mo. 379; Thomas v. Mead, 36 Mo. 233. Previous efforts to destroy these extraordinary writs have been unsuccessful. Ex parte Hagen, 295 Mo. 435, 245 S.W. 336; In re Howell & Ewing, 273 Mo. 96, 200 S.W. 65; Ex parte O'Brien, 127 Mo. 477, 30 S.W. 158; State ex inf. v. ......
-
Miskimmins v. Shaver
......87; Broadwell v. Com., 32 S.W. 141 (Ky.); in re Perkins, 2 Cal. 424; in re Ring, 28 id., 248; Hammond v. People, 32 Ill. 446; ex parte Thompson, 93 id., 99;. Lambert v. Barrett, 157 U.S. 697; State v. Brownwell (Wis.), 50 N.W. 415; in re Juneman (Tex.), 13. S.W. 783.). . . ......
-
State ex rel. Pulitzer Pub. Co. v. Coleman, 37053.
....... FRANK B. COLEMAN, as Judge of Division No. 12 of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, who was substituted for THOMAS J. ROWE, JR. Ex parte DANIEL R. FITZPATRICK, Petitioner, . v. . JAMES J. FITZSIMMONS, Sheriff of the City of St. Louis. Ex parte RALPH COGHLAN, Petitioner, . v. . JAMES J. ......