Ferguson v. State ex rel. Biggers, 46279
| Decision Date | 21 June 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 46279,46279 |
| Parties | B. C. FERGUSON et al. v. STATE of Mississippi, ex rel. Neal B. BIGGERS, J., District Attorney et al. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
C. D. Thomas, Pontotoc, Murray L. Williams, Water Valley, for appellants.
A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Guy N. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., and William Jeff East, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellees.
This is an appeal from the Chancery Court of Pontotoc County, which held that B. C. Ferguson was in criminal contempt of court for willfully violating the terms of a prior decree enjoining him from violating the state prohibition laws upon certain described premises. Miss.Code 1942 Ann. § 2646 (1956). The trial court ordered him to pay a fine of $2,000 by forfeiture of a bond previously entered into with two sureties (also appellants), and to serve a ninety-day term in the county jail.
Pontotoc County has elected to remain under the prohibition laws of the state. The District Attorney, the City Attorney and Chief of Police of Pontotoc filed an original bill of complaint, asking the court to issue a temporary injunction without notice, restraining Ferguson and others from further conducting the unlawful business of possessing and selling intoxicating liquors on the premises particularly described, commonly known as the Hilltop Service Station. The bill charged that Ferguson and his employees possessed and sold intoxicating liquors on this property. On September 13, 1968, a temporary injunction was issued against B. C. Ferguson and others, requiring each to enter into a bond of $2,000, conditioned that the obligors would not violate the state prohibition laws for two years on the described premises. Later the chancery court made the temporary injunction permanent.
On June 26, 1969, the state by the district attorney and sheriff filed a petition asking that B. C. Ferguson be cited for contempt of court and required to show cause why his bond should not be forfeited.
After a hearing, the chancery court held: Ferguson owned the property known as the Hilltop Service Station; that he was the owner and operator of the station and Walter Paden, his 22-year-old son-in-law, worked for him; Ferguson's efforts to place Paden in charge of the premises were 'a sham and subterfuge'; and that Ferguson was responsible for acts done in violation of the injunctive decree. Possession of liquor on the premises was shown by admissible evidence. Ferguson furnished 'the premises, the money, the brains and the organization to operate the business * * * and the overseeing of a large whiskey business.' Intoxicating liquor had been kept on the premises subsequent to and in violation of the injunction. The specific times when officers found intoxicating liquors possessed on this property were November 6, 1968, January 17, 1969, April 11, 1969, and April 18, 1969. On these dates, the court held, a number of bottles of liquor, carried in jackets with pockets, were taken from the persons of Walter Paden and Bobby Rex Holloway.
In a proceeding for criminal contempt of court, the evidence must establish respondent's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Jenkins v. State,242 Miss. 627, 136 So.2d 205 (1962). Moreover, the statute requires this Court to consider de novo in contempt cases the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding of criminal contempt. Miss.Code 1942 Ann. § 1152 (1956).
The trial court was justified in finding that Ferguson was not only the owner but also the operator and manager of the Hilltop Service Station. There were some slight conflicts in the evidence in this respect, but the great weight of it supports that finding beyond a reasonable doubt.
The difficult question is whether there is sufficient constitutionally admissible evidence in the record to support the chancery court's findings, that beyond a reasonable doubt Ferguson willfully violated the injunctive decree by possessing intoxicating liquors on the premises. After careful consideration of the record, we conclude that there is not sufficient competent evidence to support that holding. Therefore the decree is reversed, and appellant is discharged from the particular charges that he was in contempt of court on the dates in question.
The November 6, 1968, event was based upon an arrest warrant for Bobby Rex Holloway. The warrant is indefinite and charges no identifiable offense: 'False pretense to Dale Walton.' It was issued by a justice of the peace of Lee County, addressed to the sheriff of Lee County, and served in Pontotoc County by Pontotoc County officers on Holloway at the Hilltop Service Station. Several bottles of liquor were found on the person of Holloway. We will assume but not decide that this service out of the district and county of the justice of the peace is permissible, although it is of doubtful validity. See Miss.Code 1942 Ann. § 2475 (1956). There are many different kinds of 'false pretense' as a criminal offense. The charge is unconstitutionally vague. Lynchard v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stringer v. State
...Simmons v. State, 301 So.2d 565, 568 (Miss.1974); Scott v. State, 266 So.2d 567, 568-69 (Miss.1972); Ferguson v. State ex rel Biggers, 250 So.2d 634, 636 (Miss.1971); Northcutt v. State, 206 So.2d 824, 827 (Miss.1967); Conn v. State, 170 So.2d 20, 24 In this context, I accept that Leon has ......
-
Prestwood v. Hambrick, 47829
...a proceeding for criminal contempt of court the evidence of guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Ferguson v. State ex rel. Biggers, 250 So.2d 634 (Miss.1971); Jenkins v. State, 242 Miss. 627, 136 So.2d 205 (1962). The respondent may show by way of defense that failure to com......
-
Bowen v. Bowen, 2010–CA–01741–COA.
...guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.” Prestwood v. Hambrick, 308 So.2d 82, 84 (Miss.1975) (citing Ferguson v. State ex rel. Biggers, 250 So.2d 634 (Miss.1971)). “The respondent may show by way of defense that failure to comply with a court's decree was not willful or intenti......
-
Sneed v. State
...appellant's property was not admissible and should have been excluded from the consideration of the trial court. See: Ferguson et al. v. State, 250 So.2d 634 (Miss.1971). Moreover, there is some question as to whether or not the contraband was found at a place on the appellant's property wh......