Ex Parte Laughlin

• Decision Date: 19 June 1919
• Docket Number: No. 16613.,16613.
• Parties: Ex parte LAUGHLIN.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

213 S.W. 154

Ex parte LAUGHLIN.

No. 16613.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 19, 1919.

"Not to be officially published."

Original application by Julian Laughlin for a writ of habeas corpus, directed to George P. Weinbrenner, Sheriff of the City of St. Louis. Writ issued, and petitioner directed discharged.

Randolph Laughlin, of St. Louis, for petitioner.

BECKER, J.

This is an original application for habeas corpus, filed by petitioner in this court to obtain his discharge from an alleged unauthorized judgment of commitment for contempt rendered against him by one of the judges of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis. The writ was issued by one of the judges of this court, and made returnable before the court. The sheriff of the city of St. Louis, who holds the petitioner in custody, made return to the writ, to which the petitioner filed his motion for judgment on the pleadings and notwithstanding the return.

The facts out of which this proceeding arose may be set out as follows: Suit was filed by certain stockholders of a corporation under section 3007, Revised Statutes of Missouri of 1909, seeking redress from the circuit court because they "conceived themselves aggrieved by an election" of directors in such corporation. Among other things plaintiffs by their petition sought an inquiry into the manner and circumstances connected with and surrounding the proceeding and the conduct of the defendants in connection with said election, and that two of the defendants named therein be ordered to produce all the ballots and all the ballots with proxies used at said election, and that a recount of such ballots be ordered. During the presentation of plaintiffs' case, counsel for plaintiffs requested the production of the boxes containing the ballots cast at the election in question, which ballot boxes were at the time in the office of the defendant company. The learned trial judge ordered the attorney for defendant to "produce the ballot boxes and do it at once." Upon said counsel refusing to obey such order of the court, the learned trial judge adjudged him guilty of contempt for failure to produce said ballot boxes as ordered, and assessed a fine against him in the sum of $50, payable into the school fund, and, in default of payment of the said fine and costs, to stand committed to the common jail of the city of St. Louis until said fine and costs should have been paid or the contemner be otherwise discharged by due process of law. The attorney, refusing to pay the fine, was committed to the charge of the sheriff of the city of St. Louis, and thereupon filed his application for a writ of habeas corpus.

In the case before us the grounds for the contempt, namely, the colloquy between court and counsel on the question of the production of the boxes containing the ballots cast at the stockholders' meeting for the purpose of electing...