Ogden v. State

• Citation: 3 Neb. [Unof.] 886,93 N.W. 203
• Parties: OGDEN v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 08 January 1903
• Court: Supreme Court of Nebraska

3 Neb. [Unof.] 886

93 N.W. 203

OGDEN

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Jan. 8, 1903.

Commissioners' opinion. Department No. 3. Error to district court, Douglas county; Keysor, Judge.

“Not to be officially reported.”

Charles Ogden was convicted of contempt, and brings error. Reversed.Joel W. West and Charles Ogden, for plaintiff in error.

Frank N. Prout, Atty. Gen., Norris Brown, Dep. Atty. Gen., and William B. Rose, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

ALBERT, C.

This proceeding was brought by Charles Ogden, Esq., to reverse a judgment of the district court whereby a fine was imposed on him for contempt of court. The record of the district court, omitting the formal parts, is as follows: “On this day again came the parties hereto, attended by their counsel; also came the jury heretofore duly impaneled and sworn, and this cause proceeds. Whereupon the court finds that Charles Ogden, Esq., counsel for the said defendant, did on this day address to the court on the trial of this case insulting and menacing language; that he has threatened opposing counsel with an assault, and did willfully refuse to obey the order of the court to take his place at the counsel table and be seated. It is therefore adjudged by the court that the said Charles Ogden, Esq., is guilty of the offense of contempt, and it is the judgment of the court that the said Charles Ogden, Esq., pay a fine in the sum of twenty-five dollars ($25.00), and the costs of said contempt proceedings, taxed at $______. And it is further ordered by the court that the said Charles Ogden, Esq., be committed to the jail of this said county of Douglas, state of Nebraska, until said fine and costs are fully paid. To which findings and judgment of the court said Charles Ogden duly excepts.”

In our opinion the judgment cannot stand. The record shows three specifications against the accused: (1) That he addressed insulting and menacing language to the court during the trial of a case; (2) that he threatened opposing counsel with an assault; (3) that he willfully refused to obey the order of the court to take his place at the counsel table and be seated. It will be observed that the proceedings were conducted on the theory that the contempt was committed in the presence of the court. While it has been held that a formal accusation is not necessary under such circumstances, it is undoubtedly essential that it should affirmatively appear on the face of the record, with all the certainty of an...