Ex Parte Cragg

• Decision Date: 20 October 1937
• Docket Number: No. 19260.,19260.
• Citation: Ex Parte Cragg, 109 S.W.2d 479 (Tex. Crim. App. 1937)
• Parties: Ex parte CRAGG et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

109 S.W.2d 479

Ex parte CRAGG et al.

No. 19260.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

October 20, 1937.

Commissioners' Decision.

Original application for a writ of habeas corpus by H. T. Cragg and others, relators.

Relators discharged.

Carter & Stiernberg, of Harlingen, and S. L. Gill, of Raymondville, for relators.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

This is an original proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus, by which relators, who were adjudged in contempt of the county court of Willacy county by the judge thereof, seek to be relieved from the punishment assessed against each of them by said court.For a better understanding of the disposition which we make of this case, we deem it necessary to set out the substance of the facts established at the hearing.H. T. Cragg was and is the sheriff of Willacy county; Brownfield, the jailer; Fenner, a Texas Ranger; and Miller, a game warden.

On the morning of the 10th day of July, 1937, Fenner and Miller arrested one La Madrid, and placed him in the county jail for the offense of unlawfully carrying a pistol.A. B. Crane, a practicing attorney, who saw La Madrid under arrest and offered to make bond for him, was not only denied that privilege, but was assaulted by Miller for offering to do so.After La Madrid was placed in jail, Mr. Crane went to the jail and asked to be permitted to confer with the prisoner, but this privilege was denied by Brownfield, the jailer.Thereupon, Mr. Crane, on behalf of the prisoner, applied to Hon. W. E. McCharen, judge of the county court of said county, for a writ of habeas corpus, which was granted.Relators were ordered to have and produce the person of La Madrid before the court and show cause why they held and restrained him of his liberty.The writ was issued at 10:45 a. m. on said day, and was served upon Brownfield, the jailer, at 11 a. m., but was not served upon any of the other officers.The prisoner was not produced at the stated time, but was carried to Brownsville, in Cameron county, by Fenner and Miller, and there placed in jail.Thereupon, A. B. Crane, by duly verified motion setting forth the facts which constituted contempt of court, requested the court to cite said officers to appear and show cause why they should not be held in contempt.

If any of the officers are guilty of contempt, it is constructive contempt.They would not be guilty of constructive contempt unless they had been duly served with process, or, knowing that the writ of habeas corpus had issued, they intentionally spirited the prisoner from the jurisdiction of the court to evade service of process upon them, and by said act interfered with the orderly administration...