Herring v. State, (No. 6064.)

Decision Date22 November 1927
Docket Number(No. 6064.)
Citation165 Ga. 254,140 S.E. 491
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court
PartiesHERRING. v. STATE. ECHOLS。 v. SAME.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Russell, C. J., dissenting.

Certified Questions from Court of Appeals.

Monroe Herring and another were separately adjudged in contempt of court, and they separately bring error. On certified questions from Court of Appeals. Questions answered.

Porter & Mebane, of Rome, for plaintiffs in error.

J. F. Kelly, Sol. Gen., of Rome, and M. Neil Andrews, of La Fayette, for the State.

BECK, P. J. The Court of Appeals propounded to this court the following question, and desires instruction thereon as being necessary to a decision of the above cases:

"Alfred Adkins swore out a warrant against Emmett Echols, charging him with a felony, and Echols was subsequently indicted for such felony in the superior court of Chattooga county; Alfred Adkins being a witness for the state. While the case was pending in court and before its trial, Emmett Echols and Monroe Herring went to the residence of Fillmore Adkins, the father of Alfred Adkins, and Echols said to Fillmore Adkins, in substance, that he (Echols) wanted him (Fillmore Adkins) to get his son Alfred Adkins to testify in court that the reason he had sworn out the warrant against him (Echols), and had stated that Echols was running a distillery, was because he (Alfred Adkins) had been scared into so doing by the officers. Monroe Herring, who was present and heard what Echols said to Fillmore Adkins, then said, in substance, to Fillmore Adkins: 'Unless your son does swear that, it will cause him more trouble.' Alfred Adkins was not present, and heard none of the above-stated remarks. However, a brother of Alfred was present and heard all that was said; and the statements of Echols and Herring were subsequently repeated to Alfred Adkins by his father and brother, but neither suggested what he should swear in the case nor advised him in any way about his testimony. Emmett Echols (upon the hearing of the charges of contempt of court against himself and Herring) testified in Herring's case, and stated in his own case, that he went to Fillmore Adkins' house and talked with him as heretofore set forth, because Alfred Adkins had previously told him (Echols) that the reason he had sworn out the warrant against him and had told the officers that he had madewhisky was that he (Adkins) had been scared by the officers into so doing. This testimony of Echols was uncontradicted. Alfred Adkins did not testify in the contempt cases.

"(1) Under the above-stated facts, was the judge of the superior court of Chattooga county authorized to find that the conduct and acts of the two defendants, Echols and Herring, as heretofore set forth, amounted to a 'resistance' to the processes of the court, within the meaning of the provisions of section 4643 of the Civil Code of 1910? See, in this connection, Powell v. State, 152 Ga. 81 (2), 84 (2), 85, 86, 108 S. E. 464."

We are of the opinion that this question should be answered in the affirmative. In the case just cited it was said:

"The bribing or attempting to bribe the witness who had been subpoenaed to appear against the sons of the respondent was opposing, striving against, or attempting to obstruct the processes of the court, and was intended to bring to naught and baffle such processes of the court, and therefore, in every respect, falls within the meaning given by the lexicographers to the word 'resist' as contained in section 4643 of the Civil Code of 1910, and should be given the meaning here ascribed to it, in view of the context of the statute; though it would not necessarily be applicable to the term 'resist' as used in the Penal Code 1910, § 311, because there the act of resisting contemplated and denounced as criminal is one committed while the officer is in the act of executing or attempting to execute some process of the court."

The definition of the word "resist, " there held to be the correct definition of that term as used in section 4643, leaves no other conclusion open than that the conduct and acts of Echols and Herring, as set forth in the question propounded, amounted to a resistance to the processes of the court. It is true that in this case the defendants did not bribe or attempt to bribe a witness, but they did attempt to coerce a witness, or at least to bring strong...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Roberts v. Roberts, s. 25617
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • March 5, 1970
    ...261. Under the evidence, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in adjudicating the plaintiff in contempt. See Herring v. State, 165 Ga. 254, 140 S.E. 491; Renfroe v. State of Ga., 104 Ga.App. 362, 121 S.E.2d 811 and cit. These enumerated errors are without 6. Enumerated error 5 is wi......
  • Thompson v. Davis Colliery Co.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • November 22, 1927
    ...140 S.E. 489 104 W.Va. 493 THOMPSON v. DAVIS COLLIERY CO. No". 5807.Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.November 22, 1927 ...  \xC2" ... ...
  • Burge v. State, (No. 19194.)
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • November 13, 1928
    ...thereto as to interfere with the administration of law and justice. See Morgan v. State, 26 Ga. App. 83, 105 S. E. 449; Herring v. State, 165 Ga. 254, 140 S. E. 491. Clearly the trial judge did not abuse his discretion adjudging Burge in contempt of court, and his judgment so doing will not......
6 books & journal articles
  • 9 Contempt
    • United States
    • State Bar of Georgia Georgia Benchbook 2018 edition
    • Invalid date
    ...prior evening's drinking)]. 3. Indirect criminal contempt involves contemptuous behavior outside of the court's sensory presence [Herring,165 Ga. 254, 140 SE2d 491 (1927)]. 9.16 Disobedience of Court Orders - To find contempt from a disobedience of a court order, one must find: A. Accused h......
  • 9 Contempt
    • United States
    • State Bar of Georgia Georgia Benchbook 2017 edition
    • Invalid date
    ...prior evening's drinking)]. 3. Indirect criminal contempt involves contemptuous behavior outside of the court's sensory presence [Herring,165 Ga. 254, 140 SE2d 491 (1927)]. 9.16 Disobedience of Court Orders - To find contempt from a disobedience of a court order, one must find: A. Accused h......
  • 9 Contempt
    • United States
    • State Bar of Georgia Georgia Benchbook 2016 edition
    • Invalid date
    ...prior evening's drinking)]. 3. Indirect criminal contempt involves contemptuous behavior outside of the court's sensory presence [Herring,165 Ga. 254, 140 SE2d 491 (1927)]. 9.16 Disobedience of Court Orders - To find contempt from a disobedience of a court order, one must find: A. Accused h......
  • 9 Contempt
    • United States
    • State Bar of Georgia Georgia Benchbook 2015 edition
    • Invalid date
    ...prior evening's drinking)]. 3. Indirect criminal contempt involves contemptuous behavior outside of the court's sensory presence [Herring,165 Ga. 254, 140 SE2d 491 (1927)]. 9.16 Disobedience of Court Orders - To find contempt from a disobedience of a court order, one must find: A. Accused h......
  • 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