Ex parte Sentell

• Decision Date: 24 February 1954
• Docket Number: No. A-4383,A-4383
• Citation: 153 Tex. 252,266 S.W.2d 365
• Parties: Ex parte SENTELL.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 365

266 S.W.2d 365

153 Tex. 252

Ex parte SENTELL.

No. A-4383.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Feb. 24, 1954.

Rehearing Denied April 21, 1954.

John D. Coats, Austin, David J. Morris, Brownwood, for relator.

L. D. Hawkins, Breckenridge, for respondent, Honorable Sterling Williams, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

In this original habeas corpus proceeding, relator, Hon. Frank Sentell, seeks release from an order of the district court finding him guilty of contempt of court, and assessing his punishment at a fine of $100 and confinement in jail for 72 hours.

The matters under review arose in a hearing of a petition for a temporary injunction sought by Wilson et al., defendants, in a suit filed by Frank Stephenson, as next friend for his mother, Sallye I. Stephenson, to cancel a deed executed by her to Wilson, alleging that it was executed while she was so mentally infirm that she did not know what she was doing and had accepted much less money than the property was worth. Relator was attorney for plaintiff.

In their answer the Wilsons specially denied that Sallye I. Stephenson was of unsound mind when she executed the deed or that any overreaching was exercised by them on her to get the deed. In their cross action and prayer for injunction the Wilsons were joined by Mrs. Sallye Stephenson as cross plaintiff. They alleged that the latter did not wish to retract the deed; that she did not lack mental capacity; that Frank Stephenson had no authority to bring suit in her behalf, but was attempting to 'perpetrate a vicious fraud' upon the court. They alleged that Frank Stephenson had on several occasions threatened to do bodily harm to all cross plaintiffs and damage to the property; that he had often physically assaulted Sallye Stephenson; that Mrs. Frank Stephenson had one time attacked Mrs. Sallye Stephenson, breaking the latter's left arm, that this situation compelled her to have Frank Stephenson placed under a peace bond; that cross plaintiffs believed he would carry out his threats of further injury to them and to the property unless restrained.

Mrs. Sallye Stephenson also filed a disclaimer of any interest in the land, denied that Frank Stephenson had any interest in it and prayed that she be permitted to represent herself in the suit without hindrance from him.

It was in this background of hard feeling between the parties that the trial judge began a hearing on the prayer for injunction.

We have concluded that the validity of the contempt order must be measured under the principles applied in the case of Ex parte Fisher, 146 Tex. 328, 206 S.W.2d. 1000, 1003.

That case applies the fundamental rule that a proceeding like this is not an appeal from a court judgment but is a collateral attack on a contempt order, which can be sustained only after it is shown that the order is void; and the innocence vel non of relator is immaterial in the determination of its validity. Among supporting authorities cited is Ex parte Testard, 101 Tex. 250, 106 S.W. 319.

Recognizing this limitation upon the power of this court, we said in the Fisher case: 'The inquiry before us is whether or not a citizen is restrained of his liberty without due process of law. In determining this matter we are restricted to the question of jurisdiction, the lack of which would render the judgment void. In passing on the court's authority we look to the jurisdiction of the subject matter involved in the alleged contempt, jurisdiction of the person, and the power of the court to render the particular judgment. * * * We may consider the facts only for the purpose of determining whether they constituted acts sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court to make the particular order.'

The facts in the present case are very different from those in the Fisher case, so it seems necessary to set out the several verbal clashes between relator and the trial judge which the latter held contemptuous.

After two preliminary matters had been amicably disposed of the hearing continued with fair decorum while Mr. Armstrong was questioning Frank Stephenson until he began asking Stephenson about threats allegedly made by him against and about Wilson. Then the following occurred:

'Q. You didn't threaten his life? A. Could I make an exception to that?

'Q. You answer the question. The Court will rule on whether you answer them or not Mr. Stephenson? A. He told me what he was going to do--

'Mr. Armstrong: I didn't ask you what he told you, I asked you-read the question back mister reporter?

'Mr. Sentell: If the Court please, let the witness do the answering.

'Mr. Armstrong: He is not going to make any speech to me, Mr. Sentell. I don't want any speeches.

'The Court: Just answer the question.

'Mr. Sentell: If the Court please, we are going to try to protect the witness within his legal right. And, the idea of Counsel bulldozing the witness and trying to make him answer his way, and cut him off when he wants to, I don't think should go in this court.

'The Court: He can answer the question in plain English. Go ahead and just answer the--

'Mr. Sentell: And, he is entitled always to his explanation.

'The Court: Go ahead.

'Mr. Sentell: It is fundamental.

'Mr. Armstrong: Mister reporter, read the question back that he hasn't answered as of yet.

'The Reporter: Do you have any idea which one it is?

'Mr. Armstrong: About whether he was in a composed manner when he threatened to kill Mr. Frank Wilson.

'Mr. Sentell: We object to that statement of the question.

'The Court: Just read the question, that is not the way the question was. Just find the question and read it, and that will settle it.

'The Reporter: Now, here is the question that Mr. Sentell objected to, is that the one you want?

'Mr. Armstrong: Yes, uh huh.

'The Reporter: 'You didn't threaten his life?'

'Mr. Armstrong: Now, that is a simple question I asked you.

'The Court: Now, just answer that question, Frank.

'Mr. Sentell: Now, does the Court require him to answer just 'Yes' or 'No'?

'The Court: Well, I don't see any other way you could answer it.

'Mr. Sentell: If the Court please, under the fundamental rules any time a witness answers 'Yes' or 'No', he has got a right to explain his answer.

'Mr. Armstrong: But he must first answer it 'Yes' or 'No', then he has a right to explain it, that is true.

'Mr. Sentell: He has a right to explain it.

'Mr. Armstrong: But, he had started explaining it.

'The Court: Both of you sit down and let him answer it, did or-the question is did not threaten the man's life, answer whether you did or didn't.

'Q. Had you talked to Mr. Wilson before the incident that you detailed to the Court, a few days before or a few weeks before? A. I talked to him a few weeks before.

'Q. And, as a matter of fact you have asked him to go try to buy a piece of property off of your mother's property so he could sell it to you, didn't you? A. Yes, I asked him what he--

'Q. And, you got furious because he wouldn't--

'Mr. Sentell: Just a minute, if the Court please, if Counsel will let him finish his answer instead of trying to drown him--

'Mr. Armstrong: He was making a speech when he said yes he did.

'Mr. Sentell: If the Court please--

'The Court: Well, let him ask the question, and then object--

'Mr. Sentell:-Counsel's tactics with his big booming voice is to drown him out before he finished.

'The Court: Well, all right let him ask the question and then state your objection, he hasn't finished the question. Go ahead and ask the question.

'Mr. Sentell: He was answering when he broke in, and that is why we are objecting.

'The Court: No, he broke in with the answer. Go ahead and ask your question.

'Mr. Sentell: If the Court please, we ask for-we call for a reading of the record up to that point.

'The Court: Well, now, I heard it, and I said the answer broke in on the question. I don't want to argue about it. Ask your question.

'Mr. Sentell: You mean, while he was answering (and other words which the reporter not able to separate from other speakers' words)--

'The Court: Yes, sir; yes, sir; yes, sir, before Armstrong-before-before

'Mr. Sentell:-(a flow of words

'Mr. Sentell:-(a flow of words which the reporter not able to separate because of other speaker's words)-note our exception to the ruling of the Court--

'The Court: Before-sit down just a minute, or I am going to fine you for contempt-before Armstrong finished his question the witness broke in with an answer. Now, I don't want to hear any more about it.

'Mr. Sentell: I would like a reading of the record on that, I didn't hear it that way.

'The Court: I don't mean to argue with you about it, and the next time you argue with me I am going to fine you for contempt.

'Mr. Sentell: I am going to make my exception every time I want to in this record.

'The Court: Well, I am going to hold you in con--

'Mr. Sentell: It is my duty to do so.

'The Court: All right, you are in contempt; and, I am going to fine you $100.00.

'Mr. Sentell: For what?

'The Court: For contempt of court.

'Mr. Sentell: For what?

'The Court: For arguing with the Court when I have made a ruling, and told you that it was final.

'Mr. Sentell: I am going to make my exceptions (and other words which the reporter not able to separate from other speaker's words)--

'The Court: Well, now, I find you $100.00 for contempt, and the next time it is going to be higher. Do you want to argue?

'Mr. Sentell: I am still making my exception, that is what I have done.

'The Court: Well, I acknowledged your exception. Now, I am going to expect you to pay that $100.00 into court at 1:00.

'Mr. Sentell: (utterances which reporter not able to translate)

'The Court: Go ahead with your questions.'

The second episode, which terminated in the jail sentence against relator, occurred while defendant (and cross plaintiff) Wilson was on the stand on redirect examination by Mr. Armstrong. It arose as follows:

'Q. Mr. Wilson, when a man threatens you in the tone and the expression as he did--

'Mr. Sentell: Now, if ...