Langdon v. Judges of Wayne Circuit Court

• Decision Date: 11 October 1889
• Citation: 76 Mich. 358,43 N.W. 310
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: LANGDON v. JUDGES OF WAYNE CIRCUIT COURT.

43 N.W. 310

76 Mich. 358

LANGDON v. JUDGES OF WAYNE CIRCUIT COURT.

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 11, 1889

Petition for writ of certiorari.

F. H. Canfield, (R. E. Frazer, of counsel,) for petitioner.

Chas. Flowers, for respondents.

CHAMPLIN J.

William W. Langdon sued out a writ of certiorari to the judges of the Wayne circuit court to bring before this court for review certain proceedings then pending before the court wherein Langdon had been brought before the court upon attachment to answer for an alleged contempt. In his petition for the writ he alleged that on the 2d day of February, 1889 proceedings were instituted in the circuit court for the county of Wayne against him for the purpose of punishing him as for a criminal contempt, for an alleged unlawful interference on his part with the proceedings in an action tried in said court wherein James Hughes, by his next friend was plaintiff, and the Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Company was defendant. That he was brought before the court upon a warrant, and gave bail. The warrant and affidavits upon which it was based are set out as exhibits. That upon his appearance before the court it made an order that he should answer certain interrogatories which are set out in an exhibit. That he answered such interrogatories, and filed therewith certain affidavits, copies of which are also set out as exhibits. That thereupon he, by his counsel, moved the court to dismiss said proceedings on the ground that they were not warranted by any statute law of this state, and that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain such proceedings. That the court denied the motion. That upon the filing of his answers to the interrogatories the circuit court ruled that deponent should be examined upon an oral examination in open court touching the matters relating to the said alleged contempt. That said proceedings are being carried on as a public prosecution against him by Charles Flowers, Esq., as attorney appointed by the court for that purpose. He assigns error on the part of the court in refusing to dismiss and quash the proceedings as follows: "(1) That the alleged unlawful interference set forth in said warrant and affidavit, upon which the same was issued, does not constitute a criminal contempt under the provisions of chapter 255 of Howell's Statutes of this state, or any statute or law of this state. (2) That said court has no jurisdiction or legal authority to entertain said proceedings to punish as for a criminal contempt under the provisions of said chapter. (3) That the court has no jurisdiction or power to entertain said proceedings under the provisions of chapter 256 of Howell's Statutes, inasmuch as said proceedings are not instituted nor carried on for the purpose of enforcing any civil remedy, or to protect the rights of any party to any civil action pending in said court. (4) That said proceedings upon their face are without warrant of law, and beyond the jurisdiction or power of said court."

The circuit court of Wayne county, by GEORGE GARTNER, one of its judges, made return to the writ of certiorari, from which it appears that upon the 14th day of January, A. D. 1889, there came on for trial in the circuit court for the county of Wayne, before him and a jury, a cause wherein one James Hughes, by his next friend, was plaintiff, and the Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Company was the defendant, the trial of which cause continued from day to day, and terminated on the 18th of January, A. D. 1889, when a verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. That on the 29th of January there were filed in the same court two affidavits,-one made by George W. Bryce, and one by James H. Brady. The contents of these affidavits are not material, and need not be stated, as they were not the basis of the attachment issued against Langdon. The return further shows that upon February 2d there were filed in said court two affidavits,-one made by George F. Robinson, and one by John Nicholson. The affidavit of Robinson was to the effect that he was personally acquainted with Langdon, and met him at Lansing, Mich., on the 29th of January, when Langdon asked him if he was not the attorney of Nicholson in the matter talked of in the newspapers about contempt of court, and he replied that he supposed he was, or would be if proceedings against him for the matters talked of in the newspapers should ever be taken into court. That Langdon then told him that he had learned that Nicholson had been arrested and taken before the court, and urged him to use all means possible to clear Nicholson of the charge; saying it was a great shame that he should be arrested or charged with such an offense, and that he had plenty of friends who would see him through. That he replied that if he should be retained he would use his best endeavors to see that he had a proper defense. That on the 2d day of February Langdon met him in Detroit and asked him how Nicholson's business was getting on, and he replied that he thought that Nicholson would come out all right, and Langdon asked if there would be any money needed. That he replied that he got his pay, and did not think there would be any more money needed. That Langdon then asked if there would not be money needed to pay Nicholson's fine in said contempt proceedings. That if any was needed that he would see that he was furnished with all that was necessary, and urged him to use every possible means to clear said Nicholson of said charge. That he replied that, as he then understood matters, Nicholson was all right, and would probably escape without much punishment. The affidavit of Nicholson, made on the same day that Robinson swore to the above conversation, is as follows:

"State of Michigan, county of Wayne-ss.: John Nicholson, being duly sworn, says he resides in the city of Detroit, in said county. That upon the 14th day of January, 1889, there came on for trial in the circuit court for the county of Wayne, before Hon. GEO. GARTNER, one of the judges of said court, a cause theretofore commenced and pending in said court, wherein James Hughes, by his next friend, was the plaintiff, and the Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Company was the defendant, and upon the day last aforesaid a jury was duly impaneled and sworn to try said action. That among the jurors so selected, impaneled, and sworn was one James H. Brady, and also one Fitzsimons, with both of whom this deponent is well acquainted. That said trial continued in said court until Friday, the 18th day of January, 1889, when the same was concluded, and a verdict was rendered therein. That upon Thursday, the 17th day of January, 1889, this deponent met one William W. Langdon, a resident of Detroit, and had a conversation with said Langdon, when said Langdon asked deponent if he [deponent] was acquainted with any of the jurors in said above-mentioned cause. That deponent replied that he was acquainted with the said Brady, one of the jurors so sworn as aforesaid. That said Langdon asked deponent how well he knew him, and deponent replied that he knew him quite well. That said Langdon then related to deponent some of the merits of the case, and told deponent that, if a disagreement of the jury could be procured, this deponent might offer one of the jurors one hundred dollars. Deponent replied that that would be a very serious thing to do, and said Langdon told him there would be no danger. Deponent then said to Langdon that he would have to think about the matter. That on the evening of the same day said Langdon came to deponent's house, and then and there again said to this deponent that he [Langdon] would authorize deponent to offer said Brady one hundred dollars, and he [Langdon] would see that the one hundred dollars would be paid, if a disagreement of the jury aforesaid should be secured; and further said to deponent that, if there was any other person upon the jury with whom he was acquainted, this deponent might make to him the same offer, and he [Langdon] would see that the same would be paid. That in pursuance of the statement so made to deponent by said Langdon, and this deponent being authorized by the said Langdon, deponent met the said James H. Brady, a juror upon the said jury so sworn in said action as aforesaid, in the city hall, and told him [said Brady] that he [deponent] was authorized to offer him the sum of one hundred dollars, to be paid to him [the said Brady] if the jury disagreed. That subsequent to the time when the said conversation occurred between the deponent and the said Brady, deponent met the said Fitzsimons, another juror upon said panel, and in pursuance of the authorization and statements made to deponent by said Langdon as aforesaid, deponent told said Fitzsimons that if he would make a disagreement in said cause, he, the said Fitzsimons, could make a hundred dollars. That deponent was arrested upon an attachment issued out of said court on the 29th day of January, 1889, and that since the issuing of the said writ of attachment, and the giving of a recognizance by this deponent to appear in said matter, he has, upon different occasions, met said Langdon, and the said Langdon has repeatedly since that time stated to this deponent to keep a stiff upper lip, and that he [Langdon] would see him through, and if any money was desired, he [the said Langdon] would put it up. [Signed] JOHN NICHOLSON. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2d day February, A. D. 1889. [Signed] WALTER BARLOW, Notary Public, Wayne county, Michigan."

Upon filing these affidavits an order was made as follows: "At a session of the circuit court for the county of Wayne, held at the circuit court rooms in the city of Detroit on the 2d day of February, A. D. 1889. Present Hon. C.J....