McCarthy v. State

• Decision Date: 20 December 1890
• Citation: 15 S.W. 736
• Parties: McCARTHY v. STATE.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

15 S.W. 736

McCARTHY v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

December 20, 1890.

Appeal from criminal court, Davidson county; JOHN A. FITE, Judge.

J. M. Quarles, for appellant. Atty. Gen. Pickle, for the State.

TURNEY, C. J.

Armlee and defendant were indicted for larceny and obtaining money under false pretenses. William Lodge, who lived in Alabama, was prosecutor. He had been summoned, and also recognized to appear at the trial. McCarthy, with others, went to the home of Lodge, and proposed to compromise the case; told him if he came to Nashville he would get nothing; that it would not be safe for him to come; made him believe he would have no protection if he came; and paid the $60 stolen. The judge of the criminal court, after arraignment, plea, and proof, fined McCarthy $50 and imprisoned him 10 days, for contempt of court. There is no error in this. It is a power inherent in all courts of record to enforce their orders, judgments, and decrees, and the execution of their process, as well as to prevent all interference with the carrying out of the same. The prosecutor, Lodge, was so far within the jurisdiction of the court as that forfeiture could have been taken against him for failing to appear. He was legally bound to appear and give evidence. McCarthy interfered and, by exciting his fears, prevented him from doing so. Article 4, § 4881, Mill. & V. Code, is directly in point. It makes "abuse of or unlawful interference with the process or proceedings of the court" a contempt of court. Section 4882, which provides: "The punishment for contempt may be by fine or imprisonment or both, but, when not otherwise specially provided, the chancery, circuit, and supreme court are limited to a fine of fifty dollars and not exceeding ten days' imprisonment, and all other courts are limited to a fine of ten dollars," — does not limit the criminal court to a mere fine of ten dollars. It was certainly the intention of the legislature to include in the terms "circuit, chancery, and supreme courts," all courts of record exercising a general jurisdiction. The judges of the circuit, criminal, and chancery courts are authorized to interchange ridings throughout the state, and thereby to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon each. In several instances the circuit and criminal courts are limited, and in a very large majority of instances the circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction of criminal causes there being but few exclusively criminal courts in the state....