Hunter v. District Court of Polk County

• Decision Date: 12 January 1905
• Citation: 102 N.W. 156,126 Iowa 357
• Parties: EDWARD H. HUNTER, Plaintiff, v. THE DISTRICT COURT OF POLK COUNTY, and JOSIAH GIVEN, Judge thereof
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

102 N.W. 156

126 Iowa 357

EDWARD H. HUNTER, Plaintiff, v. THE DISTRICT COURT OF POLK COUNTY, and JOSIAH GIVEN, Judge thereof

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

January 12, 1905

CERTIORARI proceedings originally brought in this court to review the action of the district court of Polk county (Hon. Josiah Given, judge) in respect of certain contempt proceedings had in that court, and wherein this plaintiff was adjudged guilty of a contempt of court. The opinion states the case.-- Annulled.

Judgment Annulled.

Parrish Dowell & Parrish and Bowen & Brockett, for plaintiff.

Thos A. Cheshire, Wm. H. Baily, and others, for defendants.

OPINION

BISHOP, J.

The return to the writ issued shows that in October, 1903, an information was filed in the district court of Polk county charging this plaintiff with a contempt of court, for that well knowing that one M. V. Kennedy was a juror duly summoned, drawn, and sworn as one of the jury in a civil cause wherein one Pflanz was plaintiff, and the Iowa Telephone Company was defendant, then pending and on trial in said court, he did willfully and knowingly attempt to improperly influence said juror to render a verdict in said cause, by causing and procuring one M. H. Drady to converse with said juror about said cause, the merits thereof, and the verdict to be rendered therein, and to inform said juror as to the nature and amount of the verdict in said cause expected and desired by said company, and requesting said juror to render a verdict favorable to said company, and requesting said juror to see said Hunter in respect to the verdict to be rendered in said cause. Upon filing of such information, a rule issued, and in response thereto this plaintiff appeared and made answer in writing and under oath in which he denied, all and singular, the allegations in the information contained. A motion for discharge based upon the denials contained in the answer having been overruled, a trial was had, resulting in a finding of guilty, and the entry of judgment for a fine and costs. It further appears from the return that upon the trial in the district court, and at the beginning thereof, the court, on its own motion, made the following announcement and order: "It being apparent to the court from the informations filed in the case of The State v. Drady and The State v. Hunter that these two cases rest, in part, at least, upon the same state of facts, as claimed, and the testimony in the case of The State v. Drady having been taken, it is the order of the court, made to avoid an unnecessary consumption of time, that the testimony in the case of The State v. Drady shall be considered in this case as taken therein, subject to the objections, rulings, and exceptions made on the taking of that testimony, and subject to the further right of the defendant, Hunter, to object to any part thereof as being incompetent, immaterial, or irrelevant, as relating to him." To this order both parties objected and took exception. Thereupon the trial proceeded, and a submission of the case was taken upon the oral testimony of two witnesses, and a transcript of the evidence taken upon the trial of the Drady case. It appears that included in the latter was a document in writing...