Hughes v. People

Citation5 Colo. 436
Case DateDecember 01, 1880
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

5 Colo. 436

HUGHES
v.
THE PEOPLE.

Supreme Court of Colorado

December, 1880


Error to County Court of Clear Creek County.

THE case is stated in the opinion.

Mr. J. Q. CHARLES, and Mr. JOHN A. COULTER, for plaintiff in error.

C. W. WRIGHT, Attorney-general, for defendants in error.

STONE, J.

Proceedings were had in the County Court of Clear Creek County in relation to the settlement of a certain estate. From the determination of some issue in controversy therein, an appeal was taken to the district court, which, upon a hearing thereof, found that certain moneys, goods and chattels of the estate where in the possession of the plaintiff in error, W. T. Hughes, and other persons named. It was thereupon ordered by the district court that the said property be delivered [5 Colo. 437] to the administrator of said estate; that said persons account to the county court for the same; that the said Hughes pay into said county court a certain sum of money received by him from the sale of effects belonging to said estate, and that he account to said court for the sums paid out on account of the estate, and that this order of the district court be certified to the said county court, to the end that the same be enforced as the law directs. A citation was accordingly issued out of the county court, requiring Hughes and the other defendants to appear in said court and show cause why they should not comply with the order certified from the district court. To this citation Hughes appeared by attorney, and filed a sworn answer, and also an affidavit for a change of venue, both of which papers contained charges assailing the judicial conduct and integrity of the judge of the said county court in which the papers were filed. Thereupon a writ of attachment against Hughes was issued to bring him before said court, to answer for a contempt, for the use of the language employed in the documents filed as aforesaid.

Since the writ relates the principal facts upon which the proceedings for contempt sought to be reviewed here are founded, it is inserted entire, as follows:

STATE OF COLORADO, Clear Creek County.} ss.

The People of the State of Colorado to the Sheriff of Clear Creek County, Greeting:

We command you to take William T. Hughes, and him safely keep, so that you have his body forthwith before our county court of Clear Creek County, at a term now being held at the court house in Georgetown, for probate matters, to answer us for and concerning a contempt of our said court, in this, to wit: on the 24th day of June, 1879, in the district court in and for said county, at the regular June term thereof, A. D. 1879, in a case then and therein pending, wherein Daniel Ernst, administrator of the estate of Jenny Akin, against [5 Colo. 438] William T. Hughes, William J. Hurd and Frank X. Aicher; after the trial of said case by said district court, the following order was therein entered by said district court, to wit:

Now, at this day comes the plaintiff, by his attorney, G. G. White, and the said defendants by their attorney, John A. Coulter, and this cause came on to be heard, and is submitted to the court without a jury, and after hearing all the testimony, and the court being sufficiently advised in the matter, it is ordered by the court that the defendants, W. T. Hughes, Wm. J. Hurd and Frank X. Aicher, deliver to the said administrator all and singular, the goods and chattels belonging to the said estate, viz: one bedstead, one bureau, one commode, one rocking chair, one heating stove, one dining table, one meat safe, one wash bowl, one bed spring, one mattress, one bolster, two pillows, two bed spreads, three comforts, and all other articles of personal property that they and each of them have in their possession, or under their control; and it appearing that Charles H. Martin has in his possession certain property belonging to said estate: one trunk and contents, one wash bowl and other articles, it is ordered that he deliver the same to said administrator, and that the said defendants and the said Martin are hereby required to account to the county court of this county for all personal property they, or any of them, have had, or may have, in their possession or under their control, belonging to said estate. It is further ordered that the said William T. Hughes pay into said county court the sum of nineteen dollars, received by him from the sale of personal property belonging to said estate, and had and received by him from said estate, except as to such amount as he may have paid out on account of said estate, and for which he will account to said county court, and that the said defendants pay the costs of this appeal and all other proceedings had herein; and that the order be certified by the clerk of this court to the said county court, and the same be there enforced as the law directs. [5 Colo. 439]

That afterwards, to wit, on the 15th day of July, 1879, a copy of the said order was filed in the said county court.

That afterwards, on the 5th day of August, A. D. 1879, by order of the attorney of the estate of said Jenny Akin, a citation, under the hand and seal of said county court, was duly issued, requiring the said defendants, Wm. T. Hughes, Wm. J. Hurd, Frank X. Aicher and Charles H. Martin, to be and appear before said county court on the 6th day of August, 1879, then and there to show cause, if any they may have, why they, and each of them, should not comply with the judgment and order of said district court; and that said William T. Hughes show what amount, if any, he has paid out on account of said estate. Which said citation was duly served upon said Wm. T. Hughes, by the sheriff of Clear Creek county, on the day of the date hereof; and on said Frank X. Aicher, on the 6th day of August, 1879, and on said last day duly returned in court.

That upon last said date the said Wm. T. Hughes failed to appear in said county court in person, but did appear by John A. Coulter, Esq., his attorney; and upon information received by this court from the said John A. Coulter, as such attorney, the court, of its own motion, continued the time for the appearance of the said Wm. T. Hughes to answer concerning said citation until Thursday, the 7th day of August, A. D. 1879, at 2 o'clock P. M. of said day. And on the said 7th day of August, A. D. 1879, at 2 o'clock P. M., and for more than one hour thereafter, the said Wm. T. Hughes still failed to personally appear before said court in obedience to said citation, and the order extending the time of appearance of said Hughes in respect thereto; but the said John A. Coulter, attorney, did appear for the said William T. Hughes, and presented to the court to be filed, the pretended answer of the said William T. Hughes, in words and figures following:

'The defendant, in response to the citation issued by the judge of the county court, within and for the county of Clear Creek, Colorado, on the 5th day of August, A. D. 1879: [5 Colo. 440] I.

'That on the 26th day of June, 1879, an order was made and entered of record in the district court, within and for the county of Clear Creek, Colorado, against William T. Hughes, William J. Hurd, Frank X. Aicher and Charles H. Martin, and in favor of Daniel Ernst, administrator of the estate of Jenny Akin, deceased, ordering these defendants to turn over certain goods and to pay over certain moneys in said order specified; and it was further ordered by the district court, that these defendants have thirty days to file their bill of exceptions in said cause.

'That the defendants, to wit: on the 30th day of June, A. D. 1879, the said Daniel Ernst, administrator of the estate of Jenny Akin, deceased, compromised, released and discharged, and received in accord and satisfaction the goods in the possession of William J. Hurd, one of the above-named defendants, which said compromise, release and discharge is in words and figures as follows, to wit:

DANIEL ERNST, admin.,

v.

W. T. HUGHES et al.} No. 2,138.

'Plaintiff and defendants hereby compromise all matters in dispute in this cause, and defendants agree to turn over to plaintiff all goods of the estate of Jenny Akin, now in the possession of William J. Hurd, and law the same no farther, for which plaintiff agrees to absolve them from all existing and further liabilities of whatsoever kind and nature, and the defendants be fully acquitted of the same.'

DANIEL ERNST,

W. T. HUGHES,

For Defendants.

June 30, 1879.

That defendants did, on the 30th day of June, 1879, fully perform their agreements and undertakings, in accordance with [5 Colo. 441] the above agreement, and did then and there deliver the goods mentioned in the said release and discharge to the said Daniel Ernst, administrator aforesaid, and that said release and discharge was made a part and parcel of the records of the district court of Clear Creek County, Colorado.

That the defendants, relying and believing that said release and discharge, after their compliance with the same, would wholly absolve them from any further or other liability in the premises, and that the same were made in good faith, allowed the time for filing bill of exceptions and making up the record in the said district court within and for the county of Clear Creek, Colorado, to pass without filing the same.

These defendants further state that said Daniel Ernst, administrator aforesaid, had full notice of the above release and discharge, and the performance thereof on the part of these defendants, and did duly accept the terms and conditions of the same.

And these defendants further state, that the judge of the county court within and for the county of Clear Creek, Colorado, had notice of the release and discharge as aforesaid, at or about the time that the same was executed by the said Daniel Ernst, administrator as aforesaid, and further charge, upon information and belief, that G. G....

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 practice notes
  • State ex rel. Attorney Gen. v. Owens, Case Number: 18081
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • May 24, 1927
    ...v. Sheridan (Cal.) 3 Cal. Unrep. 35, 20 P. 24; Ex parte Terry, 128 U.S. 289, 9 S. Ct. 77, 32 L. Ed. 405. ¶74 In Hughes v. People, 5 Colo. 436, an affidavit for a change of judges was presented to the court while in session by respondent's attorney, respondent, himself an attorney, being abs......
  • Ex Parte Landry
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • February 28, 1912
    ...court's immediate presence, an affidavit is necessary." Volume 4, Ency. Pl. & Pr. 779; Batchelder v. Moore, 42 Cal. 412; Hughes v. People, 5 Colo. 436; Thomas v. People, 14 Colo. 254, 23 Pac. 326, 9 L. R. A. 569; Wyatt v. People, 17 Colo. 252, 28 Pac. 961; Whitten v. State, 36 Ind. 196; Sta......
  • Laramie National Bank v. Steinhoff
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • June 1, 1898
    ...the offending party, but upon the act he has done. (Dodge v. State (Ind.), 39 N.E. 746; People v. Wilson, 64 Ill. 195; Hughes v. People, 5 Colo. 436; Wilcox S. P. Co. v. Schimmel, 59 Mich. 524; People v. Freer, 1 Caines, 485; Thompson v. R. R. Co. (N. J.), 21 A. 182; Cartwright's case, 114 ......
  • People v. Barron, No. 81SA483
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • March 12, 1984
    ...Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 27 S.Ct. 556, 51 L.Ed. 879 (1907); Wyatt v. People, 17 Colo. 252, 28 P. 961 (1892); Hughes v. People, 5 Colo. 436 The contemnor's conduct is not the differentiating factor in determining whether the contempt is civil or criminal. The primary consideratio......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
25 cases
  • State ex rel. Attorney Gen. v. Owens, Case Number: 18081
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • May 24, 1927
    ...v. Sheridan (Cal.) 3 Cal. Unrep. 35, 20 P. 24; Ex parte Terry, 128 U.S. 289, 9 S. Ct. 77, 32 L. Ed. 405. ¶74 In Hughes v. People, 5 Colo. 436, an affidavit for a change of judges was presented to the court while in session by respondent's attorney, respondent, himself an attorney, being abs......
  • Ex Parte Landry
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • February 28, 1912
    ...court's immediate presence, an affidavit is necessary." Volume 4, Ency. Pl. & Pr. 779; Batchelder v. Moore, 42 Cal. 412; Hughes v. People, 5 Colo. 436; Thomas v. People, 14 Colo. 254, 23 Pac. 326, 9 L. R. A. 569; Wyatt v. People, 17 Colo. 252, 28 Pac. 961; Whitten v. State, 36 Ind. 196; Sta......
  • Laramie National Bank v. Steinhoff
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • June 1, 1898
    ...the offending party, but upon the act he has done. (Dodge v. State (Ind.), 39 N.E. 746; People v. Wilson, 64 Ill. 195; Hughes v. People, 5 Colo. 436; Wilcox S. P. Co. v. Schimmel, 59 Mich. 524; People v. Freer, 1 Caines, 485; Thompson v. R. R. Co. (N. J.), 21 A. 182; Cartwright's case, 114 ......
  • People v. Barron, No. 81SA483
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • March 12, 1984
    ...Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 27 S.Ct. 556, 51 L.Ed. 879 (1907); Wyatt v. People, 17 Colo. 252, 28 P. 961 (1892); Hughes v. People, 5 Colo. 436 The contemnor's conduct is not the differentiating factor in determining whether the contempt is civil or criminal. The primary consideratio......
  • 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