Ex Parte Summers

• Decision Date: 31 December 1844
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: EX PARTE CHARLES L. SUMMERS.

5 Ired. 149

27 N.C. 149

EX PARTE CHARLES L. SUMMERS.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December Term, 1844.

Though the law says that the officer, who has arrested a person on a ca. sa. and taken bond for his appearance at court, shall return the process and bond on or before the second day of the term, yet the court may, if they think proper, order him to return them on the first day.

The officer who refuses obedience to such an order, and sends a contemptuous message to the court, when by their direction he is informed of it, may be fined by the court for a contempt.

Where a court imposes fine or imprisonment for a contempt, if the order does not state the facts constituting the contempt, and the court is not bound to set them out, no other tribunal can reverse their decision.

But if the court does state the facts, upon which it proceeds, a revising tribunal may, on a habeas corpus, discharge the party, if it appear plainly that the facts do not amount to a contempt.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Iredell County, at the Fall Term, 1844, his Honor Judge MANLY presiding.

Charles L. Summers applied for a writ of certiorari to bring up to the Superior Court of Iredell an order made by the County Court, fining him fifty dollars for a contempt, that it might be reconsidered and reversed, or set aside.

In the affidavit, on which the application was made, the party stated that the fine was imposed on Monday, the first day of the Term, in May, 1843, and a copy of the order is set forth as follows:

+------------------------------+
                ¦“Theophilus Falls ¦)¦         ¦
                +------------------+-+---------¦
                ¦v.                ¦)¦Ca. Sa.  ¦
                +------------------+-+---------¦
                ¦James Freeland.   ¦)¦         ¦
                +------------------------------+
                

Charles Summers, the officer in this case, is fined the sum of fifty dollars for a contempt of court, and for failing to return the papers. Therefore the said Summers prays an appeal to the Superior Court, which is refused by the court.”

In his affidavit, the party further states, that he was a constable of Iredell, and that Theopilus Falls had put into his hands a capias ad satisfaciendum, issued by a justice of the peace in his favor against James Freeland, and that he had arrested Freeland and taken a bond from him, according to the statute for the relief of insolvent debtors, for his appearance at the County Court, at May Term, 1843. That on the first day of the term, he was directed by Falls not to return the execution and bond on that day, as he expected to settle the matter with Freeland; that, shortly afterwards, the attorney of Freeland applied to him in court to return the process immediately, and that he refused to do so; but that he refused, because he was not bound to make the return before the second day of the term, and with no intention to shew any contempt or disobedience to the court, and without any knowledge that the court required him to make the return; that he then left the court house, and the fine was imposed as above. Notice having, by direction of the court, been given to the county officers, they opposed the application, and offered the affidavits of the crier of the court, and of the justices who presided in the County Court at the time, and others, which stated, that after Summers refused to make a return as requested by Freeland's attorney, the latter informed the court of the request and refusal, and moved the court that he should be ruled to make a return, and that, with the view of disposing of that motion, the court ordered Summers to be called into court, and the crier immediately called him aloud at the door of the court house, and that Summers was then standing within a few yards of the crier, but took no notice of the call, and that the crier, by direction of the court, went to Summers in the court yard, and informed him that the court required him to come into court and return the said ca. sa. or give the reason for not doing so, and that Summers replied, he would not return the papers, nor go into court, and that the crier might tell the court, that he knew his own business, and the court might do as it pleased; and that upon receiving that message, the court imposed the fine for the insult offered to the court, and the contempt of its authority. The Superior Court refused the motion on the part of Summers, but allowed him to appeal to this court.

No counsel appeared in this court.

RUFFIN, C. J.

If this case be considered upon its merits, as disclosed in the affidavits, which taken altogether, explain the case fully, the Court would be little inclined to help the applicant, unless compelled by clear and strict law. There is no doubt, that every Court must have power to control its officers by process of contempt, attachment, fine, and commitment. It is the peculiar duty of a Court to the public and to every suitor, to prevent the officers of the Court from misbehavior in office, to the prejudice of the citizen, the scandal of the administration of justice, and detracting from the character of the Court. Attorneys of a court, Clerks, Sheriffs, and all officers, having the returns of process to the Court and the custody of prisoners under mesne or final process of the Court, must, of necessity, be thus amenable to the summary control and punishment of the court; else, the administration of the law would fail altogether at the option of subordinate ministerial officers, often not actuated by the best motives, nor very capable judges of what is proper. The conduct of this person was such as to call...