Ex parte Cuddy

• Decision Date: 13 August 1889
• Parties: Ex parte CUDDY.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of California

40 F. 62

Ex parte CUDDY.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. California.

August 13, 1889

J. A Anderson, for petitioner.

George J. Denis, U.S. Dist. Atty.

FIELD Justice.

The petitioner applied to me some days ago in San Francisco for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he is unlawfully imprisoned by the marshal of the United States for the southern district of California, and the warden of the jail of Los Angeles county, contrary to the constitution and laws of the United States; that such imprisonment is had under and by virtue of a warrant of commitment based upon a judgment of the district court of the United States for the southern district of California, adjudging him guilty of contempt, and sentencing him to imprisonment in that jail for the period of six months. An order was there-upon made that a writ issue to be directed to the marshal, and made returnable before me at this place, Los Angeles, on the 10th instant. The petition sets forth the judgment of the district court, rendered on the 13th of February, 1889, upon which the writ of commitment was issued under which the petitioner is held. It is as follows:

'Whereas in the progress of the trial of the action of The United States of America v. W. More Young, on the 12th day of February, 1889, upon the examination of the term-trial juror Robert McGarvin as to his qualification to sit as a trial juror in the said action, the said McGarvin testified, among other things, in effect, that on the day previous he was approached by one Thomas J. Cuddy, with the object on Cuddy's part to influence his (McGarvin's) action as a juror in the said case in the event that he should be sworn to try the said action; and whereas, from the testimony, this court, on the said 12th day of February, 1889, entered an order directing the said Thomas J. Cuddy to show cause before this court, at the court-room thereof, at 10 o'clock on the 13th day of February, 1889, why he should not be adjudged guilty of a contempt of this court; and whereas, in response to the said citation, said Thomas J. Cuddy did, on the said 13th day of February, 1889, appear before the said court; and whereas, testimony was then and there introduced in respect to the matter both for and against him,-- the court, having duly considered the testimony, does now find the fact to be that the said Thomas J. Cuddy did, upon the 11th day of February, 1889, approach the said Robert McGarvin, at the time being a term juror duly impaneled in this court, with a view to improperly influence the said McGarvin's action in the case of the United States of America against the said Young in the event the said McGarvin should be sworn as a juror in said action. Now, it is here adjudged by the court that the said Thomas J. Cuddy did thereby commit a contempt of this court, for which contempt it is now here ordered and adjudged that the said Thomas J. Cuddy be imprisoned in the county jail of the county of Los Angeles for the period of six months from this date, and the marshal of this district will execute this judgment forthwith.'

The petition sets forth the proceedings taken by the court, and alleges that the transaction which was the basis of the charge against the petitioner, and for which the judgment was rendered, took place on the 11th day of February, 1889, when the district court was not in session, and nearly a quarter of a mile distant from the court-house in which that court is held. He therefore claims that the district court had no jurisdiction to try and sentence him for the alleged contempt, because the act charged as such was committed at the time and place designated, and was not adjudged to have been done corruptly, or by threats or force. The purport of the objection is that the act charged as a contempt was not committed in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice; and therefore did not present a case within the power of the court to punish summarily, under section 725 of the Revised Statutes, and therefore that the judgment was illegal and void. That section reads as follows:

'The said courts (of the United States) shall have power * * * to punish by fine or imprisonment, at the discretion of the court, contempts of their authority: provided, that such power to punish contempts shall not be construed to extend to any case except the misbehavior of any person in their presence, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice; the misbehavior of any of the officers of said courts in their official transactions, and the disobedience or resistance by any such officer, or by any party, juror, witness, or other person, to any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of said courts.'

The marshal returns the warrant of commitment under which he holds the prisoner. By consent of parties the record in the case of the petitioner before the district court and in the supreme court of the United States is also presented. By that record it appears that the petitioner, on the 9th day of April, 1889, applied to the district court for the southern district of California for a writ of habeas corpus in order that he might be discharged from the imprisonment now complained of, asserting, as now, that the same was illegal for the reason that the court had no jurisdiction to try and sentence him, because the matters set forth in the judgment do not constitute any contempt under section 725 of the Revised Statutes, and because the judgment was not founded upon proceedings in due course of law; that the district court, after due consideration, denied the application for a writ; that thereupon an appeal was taken from the judgment to the supreme court of the United States, where, after argument and due consideration, the...