Ex Parte Kemper

• Citation: 216 S.W. 172
• Decision Date: 19 November 1919
• Docket Number: (No. 5453.)
• Parties: Ex parte KEMPER.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 172

216 S.W. 172

Ex parte KEMPER.

(No. 5453.)

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

November 19, 1919.

Original habeas corpus proceeding by Bob Kemper. Relator ordered released from custody.

Herbert Scharff and Williams & Williams, all of Waco, and W. M. Kennedy, of Grosbeck, for appellant

Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

LATTIMORE, J.

Relator was held in contempt of the district court of Limestone county, punished by fine and imprisonment, and sued out an original writ of habeas corpus before this court.

Substantially the criminative facts are that one Richardson had been summoned on the jury for the week in said court, that relatives of relator had criminal cases set for trial during said week, and that relator approached a brother-in-law of said Richardson and sought to have said juror corrupted by the promise to him, through said brother-in-law, of the sum of $50, if said juror would hold out for a hung jury or an acquittal, if taken on the jury in said cases. It is undisputed that the matters corruptive were never communicated to said juror, who was discharged from service at his own request, by the court, on convening at 9 o'clock on Monday morning of said week. It is questionable if the conversation between relator and said brother-in-law, in which said matters were broached, did not take place after said juror had been actually discharged by the court, in which event we think there would have been no contempt.

The conduct of relator, if the above facts are true, was such as to merit the strong condemnation of men who desire that the processes of the law be kept free from contamination, and the judgments of the courts be above suspicion and reflect justice, and, if we had any doubt as to the jurisdiction of the trial court in the matter we would uphold his judgment.

In our opinion, when the alleged contempt is an attempt to interfere with the jurisdiction or processes of the courts and same has never reached the point of any kind or color of communication, or contact between the corruptive effort and the officers, processes, or matters sought to be interfered with, the power to contemn is lacking. Under article 183, Vernon's C. C. P., and the opinions rendered by this court since the case of Ex parte Degener, 30 Tex. App. 566, 17 S. W. 1111, it has uniformly been held that, where the act penalized for contempt is one beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court to punish, this court would review the case and relieve...