Garland v. Tanksley, 37585
| Decision Date | 02 March 1959 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 1,No. 37585,2,37585,s. 1 |
| Citation | 99 Ga.App. 201,107 S.E.2d 866 |
| Parties | Reuben A. GARLAND, Petitioner, v. Jeptha C. TANKSLEY, Judge, Respondent |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
'The 'inherent powers' of a court are such as result from the very nature of its organization and are essential to its existence and protection and to the due administration of justice.' 14 Am.Jur. § 171. This includes such ancillary power as must from the necessity of the case be exercised in order that this court may, as provided by Art. VI, Sec. II, Par. VIII, of the Constitution of Georgia, exercise its jurisdiction for the trial and correction of errors of law from the superior courts of this State relating to subject matter of which it has exclusive appellate jurisdiction. Where it appears without contradiction that, without fault on the part of the plaintiff in error, a bill of exceptions to this court cannot be prepared in time to prevent the judgment of the trial court from becoming moot, thus resulting in loss of jurisdiction of the case by this court, the action of the trial court in rendering its judgment thus unreviewable on appeal because of a refusal to grant supersedeas amounts to an abuse of the discretion of the trial court, and this court, in such a case, will grant supersedeas in order that a proper bill of exceptions may be filed in this court so that the judgment of the trial court may be reviewed.
J. Walter LeCraw, Benjamin B. Garland, Joe R. Edwards, J. Richmond Garland, G. Seals Aiken, Vester M. Ownby, William G. McRae, Atlanta, for petitioner.
Paul Webb, Atlanta, for respondent.
On the 23rd day of January, 1959, judge Jeptha C. Tanksley, one of the Judges of the Superior Court of the Atlanta Judicial Circuit, cited Reuben A. Garland for contempt of court, the order of the contempt being as follows: 'Paragraph 1. The above styled case having been tried in this court from January 12, 1959 through January 23, 1959, and Reuben A. Garland having appeared in this court throughout the trial as attorney for the defendant, George Michael Bright, and said Reuben A. Garland during said trial having wilfully made numerous inflammatory and prejudicial statements in the presence of the jury, and the said Reuben A. Garland having made numerous contemptuous and prejudicial remarks to the court, and the said Garland having wilfully suggested answers and information to witnesses while testifying after specific instructions from the court not to do so, all as appears in the testimony of the witnesses, Mrs. Janice Rothschild, Charles B. Smith, L. E. Rogers, Jimmie Dave DeVore, Mrs. Marilyn Craig and Lewis Glover in the record of said case, and it further appearing that the said conduct of Reuben A. Garland was intended by said Garland to be contemptuous of the court, and it further appearing that said conduct did interfere with the lawful administration of justice, and said conduct having occurred in open court and in the presence of the court.
'The said Reuben A. Garland, because of the conduct referred to in this Paragraph 1 of this order is now considered and adjudged to be in contempt of the court, and it is hereby ordered that he be confined in the jail of Fulton County for a period of twenty (20) days as punishment for said contemptuous conduct.
'Paragraph 2. It further appearing that the said Reuben A. Garland did during the testimony of the witness, R. E. Little, make numerous contemptuous remarks and arguments to the court, and it further appearing that the said Reuben A. Garland did, while this witness was testifying, refuse again and again to yield to, and to obey the instructions of the court, and it further appearing that said conduct was contemptuous of the court, and all of said conduct referred to in this Paragraph 2 of this order having occurred in open court and in the presence of the court, and having occurred during the testimony of R. E. Little, and being distinct and separate acts from that referred to in Paragraph 1 of this order, and said conduct having been contemptuous of the court, and having interfered with the lawful administration of justice, the said Reuben A. Garland, because of the conduct referred to in this Paragraph 2 of this order, is hereby considered and adjudged to be in contempt of court, and it is hereby ordered that he shall be confined in the jail of Fulton County for a period of twenty (20) days as punishment for this said contempt, said twenty (20) day period of confinement referred to in this Paragraph 2 of this order to follow immediately upon the termination and completion of the period of confinement ordered in Paragraph 1 of this order.
Paragraph 3. The sheriff of this county, or his lawful deputy, is hereby ordered to remove the said Reuben A. Garland from the bar of this court of the Fulton County jail, and there to confine him for a period of twenty (20) days as provided in Paragraph 1 of this order.
'The sheriff of this county, or his lawful deputy, is further ordered, upon the termination of the confinement referred to in Paragraph 1 of this order, to immediately confine the said Reuben A. Garland in the Fulton County jail for a second period of twenty (20) days as provided in Paragraph 2 of this order.'
Subsequently, Reuben A. Garland petitioned the said judge for supersedeas of said judgment of contempt alleging the following: '1. Applicant has been held in confinement under above order without bail since Friday evening, Jan. 23, 1959, and is now confined by the Sheriff of Fulton County in the county jail under said order.
'2. Applicant desires to appeal by writ of error from said judgment of contempt of court against him, and fellow members of the Atlanta bar are now engaged in preparing for presentation a bill of exceptions assigning error upon said judgment as soon as the necessary facts and exhibits can be gathered and typed.
'3. The court reporters who took down the testimony in the above stated trial have been given a legal request to transcribe and write out the testimony of the seven witnesses who were named in the court's order adjudging applicant in contempt, and to write out the questions and colloquies and responses which took place in connection with the testimony of said 7 witnesses, and said court reporters stated that it is impossible for said record to be written out for very many days--possibly extending into weeks.
'4. The record of said testimony of said 7 witnesses and the colloquies and responses in connection with said testimony would be necessary to a proper consideration of the legal questions involved in an appeal from said judgment, particularly since said judgment referred to said witnesses by name and adjudged applicant guilty of contemptuous conduct toward the court during the testimony of the said 7 witnesses.
'5. Applicant was in a state of collapse at the conclusion of the above stated trial and at the time of his said adjudication of contempt, having just gone through 2 weeks of court trial of said case, during which night sessions were held on many nights, and applicant being so fatigued and worn out at many times during said trial that he was not in proper physical condition to go on which said trial but continued anyhow, to the detriment of his health.
'6. He is now ill and suffering greatly from his confinement in said jail, and because of his physical condition his continued confinement during the lengthy period involved in preparation of his appeal would result in cruel and unusual punishment not contemplated by the laws of this State to be inflicted during the period of an appeal.
'7. His physical condition is shown by a medical certificate attached hereto as Exhibit A.
'8. Unless a supersedeas is granted, the questions to be raised by a writ of error in this case will become moot.
'Wherefore, applicant prays that the court issue an order of supersedeas of the said judgment of Jan. 23, 1959, pending completion and presentation of the bill of exceptions above referred to within the time allowed by law, either without bond or with bond and security if the court deems that necessary or proper, or upon such other conditions as the court deems proper.'
Upon the refusal of the said judge to supersede said judgment, Reuben A. Garland filed in this court a petition for supersedeas of said trial court judgment alleging as follows: 'Reuben A. Garland, being now held in Fulton County jail under a contempt of court adjudication against him with a sentence of 40 days in jail, brings this application to the Court of Appeals of Georgia under its Rule 51 (82 Ga.App. 903), and shows:
1. He has applied to Judge Jeptha C. Tanksley for a supersedeas of the judgment of contempt of court and sentence of 40 days imprisonment in jail imposed upon him Jan. 23, 1959, a copy of said application being attached hereto as Exhibit A.
'2. Judge Tanksley refused to grant said supersedeas.
'3. Petitioner desires to appeal by writ of error from said judgment of contempt of court, and for the reasons set forth in the application to Judge Tanksley it will require a considerable time to have the necessary evidence transcribed and the bill of exceptions prepared.
'4. If petitioner's enforced confinement in jail pending his appeal is continued, the questions raised by the writ of error would become moot.
'5. Petitioner is ill and suffering greatly in said jail, as shown by the medical certificate attached to the application to Judge Tanksley, and it is not in conformity with the spirit of the laws of this State for an appellant to be so confined in jail without bond pending an appeal from a judgment which he contends is unjust.
'6. A copy of this petition has been served upon the respondent, Judge Jeptha C. Tanksley, of Fulton Superior Court.
'Wherefore, petitioner prays that this court grant its order of supersedeas in said case under Rule 51.'
This court issued a rule nisi directed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garland v. State
...on said sentences for the five days already served by him on the occasion of the first judgment and sentencing. See Garland v. Tanksley, 99 Ga.App. 201, 107 S.E.2d 866. The respondent filed his bill of exceptions in which the only assignments of error are that the order overruling the pleas......
-
Morrison v. Superior Court of Coconino County
...546 (8 Cir. 1934), referring to Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 175, 2 L.Ed. 60, 72--73 (1803); and see, also, Garland v. Tanksley, 99 Ga.App. 201, 107 S.E.2d 866, 872 (1959) and cases cited. Under our practice, a writ of certiorari has characteristically been used to review and rule upon......
-
Garland v. State
...for a supersedeas, and upon same being denied there made application to this court where the same was granted. See Garland v. Tanksley, 99 Ga.App. 201, 107 S.E.2d 866. Subsequently a writ of error was filed in this court assigning error on the judgment of the trial J. Walter LeCraw, Wm. G. ......
-
Atlanta Newspapers, Inc. v. State, 37997
...supra, would always prevent a court from becoming an oppressor since the finding of contempt is always reviewable. See Garland v. Tanksley, 99 Ga.App. 201, 107 S.E.2d 866. No stronger case of a 'clear and present danger' to the administration of justice can be found, in the writer's opinion......