Ex Parte Green

• Decision Date: 22 June 1904
• Citation: 81 S.W. 723
• Parties: Ex parte GREEN.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

81 S.W. 723

Ex parte GREEN.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 22, 1904.

Habeas corpus by L. M. Green to obtain relator's release from custody on a charge of contempt. Relator discharged.

Johnson & Edwards and F. J. McCord, for relator. W. A. Hanson, Co. Atty., and Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HENDERSON, J.

This is an original habeas corpus proceeding sued out before this court. During the January term, 1904, of the county court of Smith county, L. M. Green, one of the editors of the Tyler Courier, a newspaper published and circulated in Tyler, Smith county, and vicinity, in the issue of said paper on January 21st, wrote and published the following editorial, to wit:

"Why Is It Thus?

"The people of Smith county are having the wool pulled over their eyes and a great many of these poor creatures don't know it. But if they were tied hand and foot and compelled to sit in the court house and forced to witness the proceedings in the trial of criminal cases for one week in the county court they would come out of that building in full agreement with the Courier, which asserts that the county criminal court proceedings are not far removed from a public disgrace. Witnesses are denounced and accused of all sorts of crimes while in the witness box, and jurors are offended, ridiculed and forced into argument and to answer questions put with the sole purpose of aggravating and provoking them to say something that will disqualify the juror in that case.

"The editor sat in the court house recently and heard a lawyer tell the judge that `I know I can not get a fair trial for my client in this court,' and the judge sat like a school boy would when being lectured by the teacher.

"The taxpayers of the county are paying dearly for this public disgrace. They foot the bills and pay the penalty for tolerating these proceedings that are making mockery of court trials. For several years the Courier has been indirectly and directly trying to arouse the people in their own interest and for their own benefit, but it has made poor headway. What is needed is jurors and witnesses with nerve enough to sit in the jury box and witness chair with a gun, and then pull down on the first lawyer that offers them an insult. Where the court will offer no protection the individual should protect himself from insult. He wouldn't have to kill any lawyer. A lawyer can scent danger as far as anyone.

"The people of Smith county owe it to themselves to get together in their own neighborhoods and discuss this disgrace and what is best to be done with it. If any of the farmers are so ignorant as not to know what is going on in the court house, let them talk with the witnesses and jurors who have been in the present county court now in session, and then they will know how to proceed. They will have the information, not from the Courier, but from other sources as well, and in order to help along the Courier here publishes the names of the jurors for this week but they are not onto the jugglery on the outside, but Rev. M. O. Meador and other good citizens are onto it. Here are the names of the jurors: J. S. Hill, E. R. Gibson, W. T. Smith, R. M. Johnson, J. D. Curry, E. P. Barbee, S. J. Morris, E. L. Stuart, W. J. Howard, C. C. Cross, T. F. Morris and F. S. Zackery."

Relator was summoned to appear before said county court on January 23d to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for the publication of said writing. He came before said court and answered, among other things: (1) That the court was without jurisdiction to adjudge him guilty of contempt. (2) That the matters and things set forth in said article did not constitute contempt. (3) That said publication was not in reference to any cause, suit, or proceeding then pending, or at any time pending in said court, and was not a criticism upon any decision, order, or ruling of said court in any suit or proceeding then or ever pending in said court, and in no manner interfered with, obstructed, or impeded the trial or disposition of any suit, cause, or proceeding in said court, nor did said article obstruct or impede the due administration of the law in said court. Nor does it interfere with or prevent the judge of said court, the parties, witnesses, jurors, attorneys, or officers of said court, from the discharge of their duties. (4) And, further, that the writing and publication of said article could not be punished, as it is protected by that clause of the state Constitution which guaranties the liberty of speech and of the press, etc. The answer further proceeds to set out at length that said article was not intended in any manner to reflect upon the honesty of the judge of said court, nor does it charge that the law was not fairly administered in said court. That said article was written and published without malice and in good faith, relator believing that the same was proper matter for publication, and was designed and intended to call attention to a practice believed to be the subject of criticism, and calculated to interfere with and prevent the due and orderly administration of justice in and by said court. That the evil complained of and criticised was the treatment of witnesses and jurors by certain attorneys in said court, and any conduct on their part lacking in proper regard for the dignity of said court and its proceedings. That the publication was written while its author was smarting under indignation on account of proceedings which he had witnessed in said court, wherein the witnesses had been unnecessarily and improperly denounced and abused, jurors asked many impertinent, provoking, and unnecessary questions, and in which one of the lawyers had stated to the court and to the judge "that he could not hope to get a fair and impartial trial in said court." That relator was indignant at the lack of respect shown for said court and its proceedings which said conduct manifested, and the sole purpose and object of said publication was to express relator's disapproval of such unseemly proceedings, and to bring about a greater respect for the court. That its publication was not intended as a contempt of said court, nor to interfere with the due administration of the law in said court, but to arouse public opinion, and to prevent the unjust abuse of witnesses and conduct lacking in proper respect for the court. Relator further disclaimed any intention to provoke jurors or witnesses to any acts of violence in...