Gandy v. State

CourtSupreme Court of Nebraska
Writing for the CourtMAXWELL
Citation13 Neb. 445,14 N.W. 143
PartiesGANDY v. STATE OF NEBRASKA.
Decision Date07 December 1882

13 Neb. 445
14 N.W. 143

GANDY
v.
STATE OF NEBRASKA.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Filed December 7, 1882.


[14 N.W. 143]

E. W. Thomas, for plaintiff.

W. H. Morris, Atty. Gen., for defendant.


MAXWELL, J.

This is a petition in error to review the judgment of the district court of Richardson county finding the plaintiff in error guilty of contempt, and imposing a fine and imprisonment. The proceedings are based upon the following:

State of Nebraska v. James L. Gandy--Before District Court in and for Richardson County; Hon. A. J. Weaver, Judge.

The information of William H. Morris, district attorney of the first judicial district of the state of Nebraska, made this twenty-second day of June, A. D. 1882, gives the court to know and understand that heretofore, to-wit. on

[14 N.W. 144]

the seventh day of June, 1882, the same being a day of the regular June term, A. D. 1882, of the district court of the first judicial district of the state of Nebraska, holden in and for Richardson county, a certain suit, wherein one W. E. Gandy was plaintiff and one J. P. Pool was defendant, was there defending before said court, and which suit was on said seventh day of June, 1882, being heard on trial before said court, and a jury having been called and sworn therein, to-wit, in said suit, to try the issues joined between said parties thereto, and that the persons called, impaneled, and sworn as jurors in said cause were William Gerdes, Elias Finbaugh, etc., [giving names of the jurors,] and that after said jury was impaneled and sworn, and during the pendency and trial of said cause, and that then and there, during said pendency and trial of said suit, the said James L. Gandy (who is the husband of the plaintiff of said suit, to-wit, the husband of the said W. E Gandy) did willfully attempt to obstruct the proceedings and hinder the due administration of justice in said suit, then and there depending and on trial, as aforesaid, before said district court, in this, to-wit, by attempting to procure one George A. Abbott, Jerry Ackerman, and other persons, whose names are to this affiant and informant unknown, to unlawfully seek, strive, and attempt to corrupt and influence the jurors, to-wit, William Gerdes, Elias Finbaugh, John Penninyh, David Jones, and divers other persons, (members of and persons composing the jury, aforesaid, in said suit, aforesaid, so depending before said district court, aforesaid,) in their action, judgment, and decision there to be arrived at in said suit so depending and on trial before said district court, in contempt of this said district court and its dignity, and contrary to the statute in such case provided.

WILLIAM H. MORRIS, District Attorney.”

The defendant (plaintiff in error) moved to quash the information-- First, because it did not state facts sufficient to give the court jurisdiction; second, because it charged no specific act. The motion was overruled. The defendant thereupon demanded a trial by jury, which was refused. The court then heard the evidence in the case, and found the defendant guilty of willfully attempting to obstruct the proceedings and to hinder the due administration of justice. A bill of exceptions was thereupon signed and the case brought into this court.

The offense charged is, in substance, that the defendant willfully attempted to obstruct the administration of justice by attempting to procure Abbott and Ackerman to unlawfully attempt to corrupt and influence certain jurors. Does the information state any offense? The proceeding is in the nature of a criminal prosecution, and the same degree of certainty is required in stating the offense as would be required if the proceedings were instituted under the criminal law. Where an attempt which is not indictable becomes so when coupled with an intent to do an act that is indictable, the attempt and intent must be so pleaded as to show a criminal act. 2 Bishop, Crim. Proc. (3d Ed.) § 86. Therefore, it is not enough to charge an individual with attempting to steal goods, or generally to commit a criminal act, but the act itself must be set out. Bishop, Crim. Proc. § 88, and cases cited. The reason is stated by BULLER, J., in Rex v. Lyme Regis, 1...

To continue reading

Request your trial
54 practice notes
  • State ex rel. Attorney Gen. v. Owens, Case Number: 18081
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • May 24, 1927
    ...23 Minn. 411; O'Flynn v. State, 89 Miss. 850, 43 So. 82, 11 Ann. Cas. 530; State v. Shepherd, 177 Mo. 205, 76 S.W. 79; Gandy v. State, 13 Neb. 445, 14 N.W. 143; State v. Matthews, 37 N.H. 450; State v. Doty, 32 N.J.L. 403, 90 Am. Dec. 671; Rutherford v. Holmes, 5 Hun 317; State v. Little, 1......
  • Hughes v. Territory of Arizona, Criminal 225
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arizona
    • March 30, 1906
    ...proper method of review from a judgment in criminal contempt proceedings where the court has exceeded its jurisdiction. Gandy v. State, 13 Neb. 445, 14 N.W. 143, and cases cited; Ex parte Rowe, 7 Cal. 176; Ware v. Robinson, 9 Cal. 108; Whittem v. State, 36 Ind. 196; In re Spofford, 62 F. 44......
  • People ex rel. Attorney General v. News-Times Pub. Co.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • February 5, 1906
    ...way be brought to the court's knowledge. Until this is done the process of attachment will not issue. * * * And in Gandy v. State, 13 Neb. 445, 14 N.W. 143, it is said that such proceedings must be commenced by a sworn information. But the practice generally recognized throughout the United......
  • Brewer v. State, 32470
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • November 9, 1936
    ...147 F. 947; 61 F.2d 701; Ex parte Kemper, 86 Tex. Cr. Rep. 251, 216 S.W. 172; In re Ellison, 256 Mo. 378, 165 S.W. 987; Gandy v. State, 13 Neb. 445, 14 N.W. 143; Ex parte Wright, 64 Tex. Cr. Rep. 171; 141 S.W. 971; 9 Cyc. 16, par. 2; Haskett v. State, 51 Ind. 176; State, on inf. of Kimbrell......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
54 cases
  • State ex rel. Attorney Gen. v. Owens, Case Number: 18081
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • May 24, 1927
    ...23 Minn. 411; O'Flynn v. State, 89 Miss. 850, 43 So. 82, 11 Ann. Cas. 530; State v. Shepherd, 177 Mo. 205, 76 S.W. 79; Gandy v. State, 13 Neb. 445, 14 N.W. 143; State v. Matthews, 37 N.H. 450; State v. Doty, 32 N.J.L. 403, 90 Am. Dec. 671; Rutherford v. Holmes, 5 Hun 317; State v. Little, 1......
  • Hughes v. Territory of Arizona, Criminal 225
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arizona
    • March 30, 1906
    ...proper method of review from a judgment in criminal contempt proceedings where the court has exceeded its jurisdiction. Gandy v. State, 13 Neb. 445, 14 N.W. 143, and cases cited; Ex parte Rowe, 7 Cal. 176; Ware v. Robinson, 9 Cal. 108; Whittem v. State, 36 Ind. 196; In re Spofford, 62 F. 44......
  • People ex rel. Attorney General v. News-Times Pub. Co.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • February 5, 1906
    ...way be brought to the court's knowledge. Until this is done the process of attachment will not issue. * * * And in Gandy v. State, 13 Neb. 445, 14 N.W. 143, it is said that such proceedings must be commenced by a sworn information. But the practice generally recognized throughout the United......
  • Brewer v. State, 32470
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • November 9, 1936
    ...147 F. 947; 61 F.2d 701; Ex parte Kemper, 86 Tex. Cr. Rep. 251, 216 S.W. 172; In re Ellison, 256 Mo. 378, 165 S.W. 987; Gandy v. State, 13 Neb. 445, 14 N.W. 143; Ex parte Wright, 64 Tex. Cr. Rep. 171; 141 S.W. 971; 9 Cyc. 16, par. 2; Haskett v. State, 51 Ind. 176; State, on inf. of Kimbrell......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT