In re Dunn
| Decision Date | 17 June 1880 |
| Citation | 9 Mo.App. 255 |
| Parties | IN RE CHARLES E. DUNN. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
1. Under the Charter of the city of St. Louis, an ordinance empowering a committee of either house of the Municipal Assembly to send for witnesses and to compel the production of books and papers is not unconstitutional, as an assumption of judicial powers.
2. Under the authority given by such charter and ordinance, either house may punish for contempt any witness who refuses to produce books material to a pending inquiry, and properly called for in a subpœna duces tecum.
3. A witness cannot justify a disobedience of a subpœna duces tecum on the ground that books or papers called for are his private property.
4. A witness who is served with a subpœna duces tecum has no right to demand a declaration in the subpœna that the paper demanded is material to the investigation.
5. The requirements of sect. 3645 of the Revised Statutes applies only to parties to the suit, and not to mere witnesses.
6. The constitutional guaranties against unreasonable searches and seizures, and against depriving a citizen of life, liberty, or property, are no protection against punishment for contempt for refusing to obey a subpœna duces tecum issued under proper authority.
7. The constitutional provision that the Charter and ordinances of the city of St. Louis shall be in “harmony with, and subject to the Constitution and laws of Missouri,” requires a substantial compliance with the laws and policy of the State, and not a minute agreement in every particular.
APPLICATION for habeas corpus.
Petitioner remanded.
GEORGE MILLS, for the petitioner.
GEORGE P. STRONG, contra.
The petitioner prays to be released, through the writ of habeas corpus, from the custody of the jailer of the city of St. Louis, to which he has been subjected under the following circumstances:--
On April 6, 1880, the House of Delegates of the Municipal Assembly adopted a resolution for the appointment of a committee of three, On May 20, 1880, a subpœna duces tecum was issued under the hand of the speaker of the House of Delegates, directed to the petitioner, commanding him to appear on the same day before the committee above mentioned, and proceeding thus: “then and there to testify and the truth to say in a certain matter in respect to which they may desire to interrogate you; and bring with you a certain book known as the ‘lamp-book,’ kept by you while in the employ of Soc. Newman, receiver of the St. Louis Gas-Light Company.” This subpœna was duly served on the petitioner, who appeared before the committee, but refused to produce the book called for, alleging as a reason that said book was his private property, and that neither the city of St. Louis nor the House of Delegates, nor any officer thereof, had any legal right or power to compel him to disclose his private memoranda, or to deprive him of his property, without due course of law. Thereupon a warrant was issued by the speaker pro tem. of the House of Delegates, directed to the sergeant-at-arms, and commanding him to arrest the petitioner and bring him before the House to answer for his contempt. This warrant was duly executed, and the petitioner repeated before the House of Delegates his refusal to produce the book demanded. The House thereupon adjudged against the petitioner a fine of $20, with imprisonment in the city jail for a term of three days upon his refusal to pay the fine. The petitioner, having refused to pay the fine, was committed to the custody of the city jailer upon a warrant duly issued for that purpose by order of the House of Delegates. The jailer's return to the writ of habeas corpus shows substantially the foregoing causes of the petitioner's detention. To this return the petitioner demurs, as showing no sufficient authority for his imprisonment.
The City Charter (Art. III., sect. 31) provides that “the Assembly, or either house, shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of papers relating to any subject under consideration, and in which the interests of the city are involved, and shall have power to call upon any proper officer of the city of St. Louis to execute such process.” In pursuance of this Charter provision, an ordinance, approved March 1, 1880, was adopted, in the following terms:--
“Section 1. Whenever either house of the Municipal Assembly of the City of St. Louis shall, by resolution, authorize any of its committees to make investigation of any question or matter on which such house may lawfully take action, and shall empower such committee to send for persons and papers, such committee shall, thereupon, have authority to issue writs of subpœna and subpœna duces tecum. Such writs shall be signed by the presiding officer, or, in case of his absence or inability to act, by the acting presiding officer of the house to which the committee belongs, and shall be attested by the secretary or clerk of said house. Every such writ shall be served and return thereof made by the sergeant-at-arms to the chairman of the committee, in like manner and with like effect as such writs issued from the Circuit Court are served and returned by the sheriff.
Sect. 2. In case any person named in any such writ, and who was personally served therewith, shall fail to appear before the committee at the time and place named in the writ, the committee shall have authority to issue a writ of attachment against the body of such person, to be signed as writs of subpœna are herein required to be signed, and to be executed and returned to the chairman of the committee by the sergeant-at-arms, in like manner and with like effect as such writs of attachment issued by the Circuit Court are executed and returned by the sheriff. Any person refusing to be arrested, or resisting the sergeant-at-arms in any case provided for by this ordinance, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not less than $5 nor more than $25 for each offence.
Sect. 3. In case any person appearing before any committee in obedience to a writ of subpœna, or subpœna duces tecum, or attachment, shall refuse...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carpenter v. Reliance Realty Co.
...with the laws of the State was declared in St. Louis v. Packing Co., 141 Mo. 375, 42 S.W. 954; Paris v. Graham, 33 Mo. 94; In re Dunn, 9 Mo.App. 255; Kansas City Hallett, 59 Mo.App. 160, and in many other decisions. The general principle is recognized and stated in Judge COOLEY'S authoritat......
-
In re Holman
...Conrades case, which in any way disturb or overturn the law as there announced by Judge GOODE, speaking for our court. See, also, In re Dunn, 9 Mo.App. 255, where the subject is ably discussed by Judge LEWIS then of our court. A learned discussion of the power of a board of equalization to ......
-
In re Sanford
...cited. See also Ex parte Martin, L. R. 4 Q. B. 212; People v. Hicks, 15 Barb. 160; Matter of Oath Before Justices, 12 Coke. 130; In re Dunn, 9 Mo.App. 255.] The latter case is much like the one at bar. If we apply this rule to the act under consideration, then there can be no reasonable dou......
-
State ex rel. Mueller v. Thompson
...such charter power may authorize the city council to imprison for contempt for failure to attend and produce books of account. In re Dunn, 9 Mo. App. 255. It is also ruled in Missouri that, if the Constitution confers upon a city the power of eminent domain, the city by adoption of a home r......