Ex Parte Kearby

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Writing for the CourtHenderson
Citation34 S.W. 635
PartiesEx parte KEARBY et al.
Decision Date05 March 1896
34 S.W. 635
Ex parte KEARBY et al.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
March 5, 1896.

Original application by J. C. Kearby and W. E. Hawkins for a writ of habeas corpus, for the purpose of obtaining their discharge from imprisonment for contempt under an order of the criminal district court. The writ was granted, and the attorney general moves to dismiss the writ and remand the applicants. Motion overruled.

S. H. Russell, J. C. Muse, and S. B. Hawkins, for relators. Mann Trice, for the State.

HENDERSON, J.


Applicants in this case applied for writs of habeas corpus, and one of the judges of this court granted the same, making the writs returnable before the full court, which is now in session at this place. The applicants allege that the matter about which the judge of the criminal district court assumed to imprison them for contempt occurred during the trial of a cause in said district court. It is averred in the application that the parties did no unlawful act in said court, and were guilty of no contempt in said court in any respect whatsoever, and that the said district judge, unlawfully and without cause therefor, remanded them to jail, until they should purge themselves of said contempt before said court and jury; that no order of the court was entered, and no writ of commitment issued from said court. Applicants claim that the order of imprisonment is for an indefinite time, and is therefore void; and that it is also void, because no judgment of the court was entered against them, and no writ of commitment was issued as against them. The applicant Hawkins further shows that he made an effort to purge himself of contempt of said court by either a written or verbal explanation or apology, which was refused by the judge.

The attorney general moved to dismiss the writ and remand the relators to jail, because this court has no jurisdiction to inquire into the matter of their detention. This question involves the power of this court to inquire, by an original proceeding, into the legality of a detention by a court of subordinate jurisdiction for an alleged contempt. It is admitted that this presents a question of some delicacy, for in the power of courts to preserve order and decorum in their presence is involved, to a great extent, the authority and dignity of the court itself; and therefore any court that should undertake to interfere with such jurisdiction ought to act with due care and caution to ascertain whether or not it has jurisdiction to entertain the writ. Although this is not a new question in this state (see Ex parte Degener, 30 Tex. App. 566, 17 S. W. 1111), yet we...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 practice notes
  • Robertson v. State, 6 Div. 643
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • December 16, 1924
    ...34 Tex.Cr.R. 591, 31 S.W. 641; Ex parte Tinsley, 37 Tex.Cr.R. 517, 66 Am.St.Rep. 818, 40 S.W. 306; Ex parte Kearby, 35 Tex.Cr.R. 531, 34 S.W. 635; Id., Tex.Cr.R. 634, 34 S.W. 962; Brown, Jur., §§ 109, 110; Ex parte Lake, 37 Tex.Cr.R. 656, 66 Am.St.Rep. 848, 40 S.W. 727. 'Some of the older a......
  • Laird v. State, (No. 3900.)
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • January 26, 1916
    ...having been written by Presiding Judge White. Ex parte Taylor, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 591, 31 S. W. 641; Ex parte Kearby, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 531, 34 S. W. 635; Ex parte Kearby, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 634, 34 S. W. 962; Ex parte Duncan, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 661, 62 S. W. 758; Ex parte Tinsley, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 517, 40 ......
  • Ex Parte Wolters
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • December 6, 1911
    ...by this court a few of which will be enumerated; Ex parte Taylor, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 594, 31 S. W. 641; Ex parte Kearby, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 538, 34 S. W. 635; Ex parte Wilson, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 637, 47 S. W. 996; Ex parte Duncan, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 661, 62 S. W. 758; Ex parte Snodgrass, 43 Tex. Cr. R. 359......
  • Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. Gildersleeve
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 13, 1909
    ...Ex parte David Schenck, 65 N. C. 353; Cole v. Egan, 52 Conn. 219; State v. Rust, 2 Tenn. Ch. 181; Ex parte Kearby, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 531, 34 S. W. 635. See, also, Ex parte Crenshaw, So delicate is the subject of contempt that courts have been unable to hold an even and uniform voice in dealing......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
28 cases
  • Robertson v. State, 6 Div. 643
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • December 16, 1924
    ...34 Tex.Cr.R. 591, 31 S.W. 641; Ex parte Tinsley, 37 Tex.Cr.R. 517, 66 Am.St.Rep. 818, 40 S.W. 306; Ex parte Kearby, 35 Tex.Cr.R. 531, 34 S.W. 635; Id., Tex.Cr.R. 634, 34 S.W. 962; Brown, Jur., §§ 109, 110; Ex parte Lake, 37 Tex.Cr.R. 656, 66 Am.St.Rep. 848, 40 S.W. 727. 'Some of the older a......
  • Laird v. State, (No. 3900.)
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • January 26, 1916
    ...having been written by Presiding Judge White. Ex parte Taylor, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 591, 31 S. W. 641; Ex parte Kearby, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 531, 34 S. W. 635; Ex parte Kearby, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 634, 34 S. W. 962; Ex parte Duncan, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 661, 62 S. W. 758; Ex parte Tinsley, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 517, 40 ......
  • Ex Parte Wolters
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • December 6, 1911
    ...by this court a few of which will be enumerated; Ex parte Taylor, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 594, 31 S. W. 641; Ex parte Kearby, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 538, 34 S. W. 635; Ex parte Wilson, 39 Tex. Cr. R. 637, 47 S. W. 996; Ex parte Duncan, 42 Tex. Cr. R. 661, 62 S. W. 758; Ex parte Snodgrass, 43 Tex. Cr. R. 359......
  • Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. Gildersleeve
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 13, 1909
    ...Ex parte David Schenck, 65 N. C. 353; Cole v. Egan, 52 Conn. 219; State v. Rust, 2 Tenn. Ch. 181; Ex parte Kearby, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 531, 34 S. W. 635. See, also, Ex parte Crenshaw, So delicate is the subject of contempt that courts have been unable to hold an even and uniform voice in dealing......
  • 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