Ex Parte O'Brien

Citation127 Mo. 477,30 S.W. 158
PartiesEx parte O'BRIEN.
Decision Date18 March 1895
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

Thos. B. Harvey and Chester H. Krum, for petitioner. Martin & Bass, for respondent.

SHERWOOD, J.

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: "City of St. Louis — ss.: The State of Missouri to the Sheriff, of the City of St. Louis, greeting: Whereas, on the nineteenth day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-four, at our St. Louis court of criminal correction, before our judge thereof, Martin O'Brien was guilty of disorderly, contemptuous, and insolent behavior, committed during the sitting of said court, in immediate view and presence of the court, and directly tending to interrupt its proceedings and to impair the respect due to its authority, in this, to wit, that the said Martin O'Brien did then and there, during the sitting of court, in immediate view and presence of the court, and with the intent, insolently and contemptuously, to interrupt the proceedings of this court, and to impair the respect due to its authority, assault, beat, bruise, and commit a murderous assault upon one William Wright, who was then and there in the peace of the state, and that said assault, committed as aforesaid, did tend to, and actually did, interrupt the proceedings of this court, and to impair the respect due to its authority; and whereas, the court did consider and adjudge that the said Martin O'Brien, for his said contempt committed as aforesaid, be imprisoned in the jail of St. Louis city for the term of ten days, and also adjudged to pay therefor to the state of Missouri, for the use of the city of St. Louis, a fine of fifty dollars, as appears to us on record, — you are therefore commanded to take the body of the said defendant into your custody, and convey him to the jail of the city of St. Louis, the keeper whereof is hereby...

To continue reading

Request your trial
72 cases
  • State ex rel. Russell v. Highway Commission, 30923.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 28, 1931
    ......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.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 28, 1938
    ......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
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • September 18, 1899
    ......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.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 10, 1941
    ....... 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. ......
  • 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