Ex Parte McRae

Decision Date09 December 1903
Citation77 S.W. 211
PartiesEx parte McRAE.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Bell & McAskill, for relator. Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROOKS, J.

Hon. J. L. Camp, judge presiding of the Forty-Fifth Judicial District, fined relator, McRae, $100, and ordered him to be confined in jail for three days for contempt of court. Relator sued out a writ of habeas corpus, which was granted by Presiding Judge Davidson in vacation, and made returnable before the court in October. From the agreed statement of facts it is made to appear that on the morning of June 23, 1903, the case of Kraus v. San Antonio & Aransas Pass Railroad Company was called for trial in Judge Camp's court in the city of San Antonio, and the jury was impaneled about 11 o'clock of that morning, and that Thomas and Fowler were jurors in that case, and lived at Elmendorf. J. C. Hopwood testified: That he was constable at Elmendorf, and had known relator, McRae, about 15 years. That he met McRae on Tuesday morning about 9 o'clock, and passed the time of day. That "McRae told me there was an Elmendorf man up here on the jury. Did not tell me his name. He did not ask me any other questions at that time. * * * I next saw McRae between 11 and 12 o'clock that same day, in the corridor of the courthouse, by the side of the elevator. * * * I said to McRae there are two men from Elmendorf on the jury. I had been in the courtroom, and saw Fowler and Thomas on the jury. * * * I said to McRae, `Well, Will, there are two men on the jury from Elmendorf;' and he said: `What kind of men are they? Do you think they would give a big verdict against a railroad just because it was a railroad?' And I told him I didn't think they would. I told him they were good, straight men, and would do what they thought was right. And I told him I would be willing to take either one or both of them on any case against me, either civil or criminal. McRae asked me how I was getting along—what I was making out of my office—and I told him there was but little in it, and commenced talking about the railroad again. He told me there was a man up there asking for damages, and he did not believe he was entitled to any because he did not believe he was hurt; and he said, `Do you believe they would give him a verdict because he was a poor man?' And I said, `I don't think they would;' and I told him I thought many times the railroad did get gouged, but that they had always treated me very well, and gave me a pass between Elmendorf station and San Antonio; and Mr. Stevens had just told me they settled for a horse all right without any trouble, and I thought sometimes they got imposed upon. I agreed with him that some time they had been imposed upon. He said this man [Kraus] was trying to impose upon the railroad. He further said that maybe he could help me out with the railroad company. He might get me a pass good from one end of the road to the other, and, if he could do so, he would, and might help me out a little financially. It might not be very much per month, but might be enough to help me out. He said, `You are living right there, and you might be able to help the company out a little in these claims when they have anything at stake, by calling on the witnesses.' There was nothing else said between McRae and myself at this time. This was about 12 o'clock on Tuesday. I did not see McRae again that day. The next time I saw him was on the 24th, near John Dolan's saloon, about dinner time. * * * I asked him, `Are they through with that case up there yet?' and he said: `I do not know. No, I think it will take them all the evening. They are off for dinner.' And he said: `You see those two jurors from Elmendorf; keep your ears open, and see how they stand, and find out all you can, and let me know. I will see you at two o'clock.' There was no other conversation between myself and McRae at that time. I saw these two jurors after that. I was sitting in those chairs in front of the Southern Hotel, and there were three chairs pretty close together, and I sat down in one chair that was empty, and Mr. Austin White was sitting in another, and a gentleman in the other, I didn't know. Somebody touched me on the back. It was Mr. Fowler, and he said, `Hello, what are you doing up here, smoking cigars?' And I said, `I guess you can smoke cigars, just so you smoke Mexican cigars.' That was the Mr. Fowler on the jury. He also inquired about the health of a lady here. He never mentioned the case on trial to me, and I never mentioned it to him. I asked him when he was going home, and he said he thou...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Knox v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • June 8, 1931
    ...378; Ex parte Wright (Texas), 141 S.W. 971; State on Inf. of Kimbrell v. Clark, 114 S.W. 536; In re Ellison (Mo.), 165 S.W. 987; Ex parte McRae, 77 S.W. 211; Ex parte Kemper, 216 172 (Texas); U. S. v. Carroll (D. C. Mont.), 147 F. 947; Poindexter v. Arkansas, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 517. In no r......
  • Ex Parte Privitt
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • November 7, 1934
    ...seems no difference in the possible harm resulting, nor the injury to the proper functioning of the court. See, also, Ex parte McRae, 45 Tex. Cr. R. 285, 77 S. W. 211. Believing that the court below had jurisdiction of the person and of the subject-matter, and that his judgment was correct ......
  • Ex Parte Bailey
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • November 19, 1941
    ...are Ex parte Ratliff, 117 Tex. 325, 3 S.W.2d 406, 57 A.L.R. 541; Ex parte Landry, 65 Tex. Cr.R. 440, 144 S.W. 962; Ex parte McRae, 45 Tex.Cr.R. 285, 77 S.W. 211. As we view the record it becomes unnecessary to consider whether the alleged contempt was constructive or If a party could be hel......
  • United States v. Carroll
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Montana
    • August 20, 1906
    ...stops short of a misbehavior that is effective to obstruct, or impede justice, or to hinder its administration. The case of Ex parte McRae (Tex. Cr. App.) 77 S.W. 211, to above, is apt; the facts being very similar to the one at bar, whereof the court says: 'We do not think this testimony l......
  • 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