Haaren v. Mould
| Decision Date | 26 October 1909 |
| Parties | HAAREN v. MOULD, DISTRICT JUDGE. STEVENSON v. MOULD, DISTRICT JUDGE. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Woodbury County; David Mould, Judge.
Original proceedings instituted in this court to review the acts of the respondent, as judge of the district court, in finding the complainants guilty of a contempt and assessing a penalty therefor. The two cases are presented in a single record, and depend upon altogether similar facts. Both will be disposed of in a single opinion. Dismissed.T. P. Murphy, for complainants.
Jno. F. Joseph, for respondent.
The return of the respondent, to which alone this court must look for the facts in the case, shows that on April 4, 1908, one H. H. Sawyer filed in the office of the clerk of the Woodbury district court an information charging Frank Haaren, complainant, with contempt of the authority of said court in the violation of an injunction theretofore issued against him at the suit of said Sawyer. A copy of the alleged decree was attached to the information, showing that at the suit of said Sawyer the said district court, Hon. John F. Oliver, presiding, did on June 8, 1907, permanently enjoin and restrain the said Haaren from the traffic in intoxicating liquors contrary to law, at any and all places within the Fourth judicial district of Iowa. Acting upon this information, the Hon. William Hutchinson, one of the judges of said district court, issued a precept for the production of said accused person before him or some other judge of the same district for hearing and trial on said charge. Said precept was made returnable on April 13, 1908, on which date the said Haaren appeared before the said district court, the Hon. David Mould, respondent herein, being the judge presiding, and by agreement the hearing on the contempt proceedings were continued until April 18, 1908. At the time so fixed a hearing was had before said court upon the matters charged in the information, the said Haaren being present and represented by counsel. Before any evidence had been introduced, the said accused objected to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain said proceedings because the order or precept by which he had been called into court to answer was issued by one of the judges at a time when the court was in actual session. Without ruling on the objection the court proceeded to the hearing of the testimony offered on the part of the informant. At the close of said testimony, the accused offering no testimony in his own behalf, a submission of the matter was taken. Thereafter, and before entering any decision, the court on its own motion, and over the objection of the accused, set aside the submission and made an entry expressly overruling the objection to its jurisdiction, and offered the accused opportunity to introduce evidence in his defense if he desired to do so. Declining the opportunity thus offered, the accused moved to arrest judgment against him on the following grounds: (1) The proceedings were instituted before a judge, and not before the court, although the court was then in session. (2) No authenticated copy of the alleged injunction was furnished to the judge or attached to the information. (3) The proceeding was not entered on the calendar of the court, and no order issued by the court, the same being issued by the judge as in vacation. (4) There is no evidence of any violation of an injunction, in that no record entry of the decree, or any authenticated copy thereof, has been introduced in evidence. (5) There is no competent evidence showing the alleged acts by the accused. The court denied this motion, and thereupon entered judgment, finding the accused guilty of contempt as charged, and ordering that he pay a fine of $200 and costs. The respondent makes further return that the decree of injunction which the accused was found to have violated was entered by said court when presided over by Hon. John F. Oliver, judge, and that the record entry of said decree was not offered or presented in evidence on the hearing of the charge of contempt, but the court on said hearing, acting on its own motion, took judicial notice of said decree. The grounds upon which the writ of certiorari is sought to be sustained, and the judgment entered against the complainant herein annulled, are substantially those stated in the motion for arrest.
1. The objection to the jurisdiction of the court is not well taken. The precept or warrant by which the accused person is brought into court is not essential to the jurisdiction of the court to hear and try the charge of contempt. The foundation of the proceedings--that which authorizes the court to act in the premises--is the information. In the language of the Code (section 2047) the proceedings are “commenced by filing with the clerk of the court an information under oath setting out the alleged facts constituting such violation.” The office of the precept, warrant, or citation is to bring the accused into court, and give him an opportunity to be heard in his defense. He may waive the issuance or service of such process and appear to the proceedings, and when once in court, he cannot be heard to question its jurisdiction because of irregularity in the issuance of the precept, if the information be sufficient in form and substance and duly filed. State v. Thompson, 130 Iowa, 227, 106 N. W. 515. Nor is the failure to attach to the information a duly authenticated copy of the decree alleged to have been violated a valid jurisdictional objection. It is true that in the general chapter upon the subject of injunctions (Code, § 4372) it is provided that a judge in vacation may issue a precept for the attachment of a person alleged to have violated a decree, on being furnished an authenticated copy of the decree and satisfactory proof of the alleged violation of its provisions, and it may be that the court or a judge thereof could, in the instant case, have pursued the course here pointed out, but the Legislature has seen fit to make special provision as to the procedure for the trial and punishment of persons violating liquor injunctions. See Code, § 2407, above cited. These provisions do not include any requirement for attaching an authenticated copy of the decree to an information charging its violation, and we think its omission is not fatal to a court's jurisdiction to hear and pass upon the merits of the charge. McGlasson v. Scott, 112 Iowa, 289, 83 N. W. 974.
2. It is argued that the record discloses fatal error in the act of the trial court in declining to rule upon the objection made by the accused to its jurisdiction and to the introduction of evidence. It is the right of the accused to have his objections ruled...
To continue reading
Request your trial