Ex Parte Morris
| Citation | 215 S.W.2d 598 |
| Decision Date | 20 October 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. A-1758.,A-1758. |
| Parties | Ex parte MORRIS. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Texas |
John B. McNamara, and C. S. Farmer, both of Waco, for petitioner.
John Dowdy, Dist. Atty., of Athens, Price Daniel, Atty. Gen., and Wm. S. Lott and J. A. Amis, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
Relator, Pat Morris, seeks release in this Court from the restraint of an order of the District Court of Anderson County adjudging him to be in contempt of court for violating an injunction issued out of that court, by possessing intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale in Anderson County, and fixing his punishment at a fine of $100.00 and confinement in the county jail for three days. No questions as to the validity of the injunction or as to the sufficiency of the complaint and notice in the contempt proceedings are involved. The sole question for decision is whether the contempt order is based on any evidence.
The State relies solely upon these facts as evidence of guilt: On May 8, 1948, officers discovered two pints of whisky in an old car near a garage in Anderson County, where relator spent a great deal of time. It was not shown that either the old car or the garage belonged to relator. On two occasions prior to May 8th relator had been observed walking away from this old car, and on one of those occasions, about two weeks prior to May 8th, he was observed looking into the front seat of the car. No proof was made that these two pints of whisky belonged to relator or ever came into his possession for any purpose. Those are the only facts relied on by the State, except copies of informations, complaints, and judgments of prior convictions and one acquittal of relator for violations of the liquor law. All those documents antedated the issuance of the injunction for the violation of which relator stands convicted. They might be relevant if this were a hearing to determine whether or not an injunction should be issued, but clearly have no relevancy in this proceeding. Proof that there were grounds for the issuance of the injunction has no place in a contempt proceeding for the alleged violation of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte La Rocca
...have been denied due process of law and the contempt order was and is void. Ex parte Helms, 152 Tex. 480, 259 S.W.2d 184; Ex parte Morris, 147 Tex. 140, 215 S.W.2d 598. This brings us to a consideration of the testimony on which the trial judge based his conclusion that the relators conspir......
-
Ex parte Twedell
...satisfied his burden of showing that the Minyard Corporations were engaged in business affecting interstate commerce: Ex parte Morris, 147 Tex. 140, 215 S.W.2d 598, 599, was a habeas corpus case, and in that case we announced the rule to 'In habeas corpus proceedings we do not consider the ......
-
Ex parte Helms
...Tex. 148, 133 S.W.2d 565; Ex parte Holden, 144 Tex. 295, 190 S.W.2d 485; Ex parte Henry, 147 Tex. 315, 215 S.W.2d 588; Ex parte Morris, 147 Tex. 140, 215 S.W.2d 598. But this is not such a An examination of the record in the contempt proceeding reflects that relator was duly notified of the......
-
Deramus v. Thornton
...contemptuous disobedience. Ex parte White, 154 Tex. 126, 274 S.W.2d 542; Ex parte Bethurum, 153 Tex. 563, 272 S.W.2d 85; Ex parte Morris, 147 Tex. 140, 215 S.W.2d 598. The application for writ of mandamus is SMITH, Justice (dissenting). There is no evidence in the record that relator 'wilfu......