Jacobs v. Parham

• Decision Date: 17 October 1927
• Docket Number: 247
• Citation: 298 S.W. 483,175 Ark. 86
• Parties: JACOBS v. PARHAM
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

298 S.W. 483

175 Ark. 86

JACOBS v. PARHAM

No. 247

Supreme Court of Arkansas

October 17, 1927

Certiorari to Desha Circuit Court; T. G. Parham, Judge judgment quashed.

Judgment quashed.

R. W Wilson and Utley & Hammock, for appellant.

Eric M. Ross, for appellee.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

T. R. Jacobs seeks by certiorari to review the proceeding in the circuit court of Desha County whereby he was suspended from the office of county judge of said county upon the filing of several indictments against him, charging him with misfeasance and malfeasance in office.

The body of the order of suspension reads as follows:

"Now on the 23rd day of August, 1927, there were filed in this court certain indictments returned by the grand jury of Desha County, charging the said T. R. Jacobs with the crimes of making excessive allowances against said county after the revenues of said county had become exhausted, a malfeasance in office, and charging also two offenses constituting misfeasance in office; and it appearing to the court that the said T. R. Jacobs is now the duly elected, qualified and acting county and probate judge within and for said county. It is therefore considered, ordered and adjudged by the court that the said T. R. Jacobs be and he is hereby suspended from said office of county and probate judge of Desha County, and enjoined and prohibited from performing any of the acts and duties incumbent on him as such county and probate judge, pending the trial of such charges."

Certified copies of the indictments were also filed by Jacobs with his petition, and are a part of the record in the proceeding. They show on their face that Jacobs was indicted for misdemeanors, and that the charges relate to matters which are alleged to have occurred during a former term of T. R. Jacobs, as county judge of Desha County, Arkansas. The order of suspension was made under § 10335 of Crawford & Moses' Digest, which reads as follows:

"Whenever any presentment or indictment shall be filed in any circuit court of this State against any county or township officer, for incompetency, corruption, gross immorality, criminal conduct amounting to a felony, malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance in office, such circuit court shall immediately order that such officer be suspended from his office until such presentment or indictment shall be tried. Provided, such suspension shall not extend beyond the next term after the same shall be filed in such circuit court, unless the cause is continued on the application of the defendant."

Section 10336 provides that, upon the conviction of any such officer for any such offense, a part of the sentence of the circuit court having jurisdiction shall be to remove such officer from office.

We have no decision of our own court construing the precise question raised by this proceeding. Other states, however, have similar statutes, and there is a decided conflict in the cases as to whether such statutes provide for the removal of public officers for misconduct during a previous term. The conflicting decisions are annotated in a case-note to 17 A L. R., beginning at page 279. The annotator says that the cases, numerically considered, are nearly evenly divided. Those favoring the construction that an officer may be removed for offenses committed during a previous term say that this holding best carries out the object and purpose of such statutes. It is pointed out that the object of...