Ex parte Redmond, 29028

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
• Writing for the Court: Anderson, J.
• Citation: 132 So. 328,159 Miss. 449
• Parties: EX PARTE REDMOND
• Docket Number: 29028
• Decision Date: 09 February 1931

132 So. 328

159 Miss. 449

EX PARTE REDMOND

No. 29028

Supreme Court of Mississippi

February 9, 1931

Division B

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

If alleged contempt is constructive, due process requires notice and specification of ground of contempt, but not if contempt is direct.

2. CONTEMPT.

"Direct contempt" consists of words spoken or acts done in presence of court which tend to embarrass or prevent ordinary administration of justice.

3. CONTEMPT.

Doubt whether alleged contempt is direct or constructive should be resolved in favor of latter.

4. CONTEMPT.

Filing of motion for new trial containing alleged contemptuous language held constructive contempt merely, and therefore alleged contemnor was entitled to notice and specification of ground of alleged contempt. [159 Miss. 450]

Hon. V. J. STRICKER, Chancellor.

APPEAL from chancery court of Hinds county, First district, HON. V. J. STRICKER, Chancellor.

S. D. Redmond was adjudged guilty of a direct contempt of court, and fined and sentenced accordingly, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Powell, Harper & Jiggitts, and S. C. Broom, all of Jackson, Truly & Truly, of Fayette, and John H. Cook, of Clarksdale, for appellant.

Whether this contempt be a direct or a constructive contempt the defendant was entitled to his day in court.

10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1098; Ex parte Ireland, 38 Tex. 344.

The question of the validity of a sentence for a criminal contempt, rendered in the absence of the contemnor, does not seem to have been raised, except in two cases. This lack of authority is due, doubtless, to the fact that, as has been pointed out, the courts are unanimous in looking upon such proceedings as strictissimi juris; hence, the accused is entitled to the same safeguards as in a criminal prosecution. Therefore, a final judgment rendered in the absence of the one accused of a criminal contempt, without a hearing or an opportunity to defend, is void.

Wheeler & W. Mfg. Co. v. Boyce. 36 Kans. 350, 59 Am. Rep. 571, 13 P. 609; Mvlius v. McDonald, 56 S.E. 602. 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1098, at page 1101; Ex parte Ratliff, 3 S.W.2d 406: Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 535, 69 L.Ed. 773, 45 S.Ct. 390.

Redmond, the defendant, made no utterance whatever in contempt of the court in the presence of the court. The defendant could not possibly be guilty of a direct contempt under the law of our state, as well as under that of other states defining direct contempt.

6 R. C. L., pages 488, 491; Neely v. State, 98 Miss. 816; Grace v. State, 108 Miss. 767.

P. H. Eager, Jr., and Chalmers Potter, both of Jackson, opposed.

There was no necessity for Redmond's presence in the court at the time of the trial.

It is the almost universal rule that, where the contempt is direct, in the immediate presence of the court, summary punishment may be inflicted, without affidavit, notice, rule to show cause, or other process.

13 C. J., page 63.

Even if process had been necessary to have brought him before the court initially his appeal of the original, and, as the court found, erroneous judgment, operated as a general entry of appearance before the appeal was taken.

2 R. C. L., page 333; Foster-Milburn Co. v. Chin. 134 Kv. 424, 120 S.W. 364, 135 A. S. R. 417, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1137; Section 1276. Code of 1930, section 2807, Hemingway's Code of 1927.

The language contained in the motion was contemptuous.

This matter has been foreclosed by the decision of this court in 126 Southern, page 485.

Argued orally by Louis M. Jiggitts, for appellant.

OPINION [132 So. 329]

[159 Miss. 451] Anderson, J.

At the July, 1930, term of the chancery court, first district of Hinds county, appellant was adjudged guilty of a direct contempt of the court, and...