People v. Pearson
| Decision Date | 31 December 1841 |
| Citation | 1841 WL 3315,4 Ill. 270,3 Scam. 270 |
| Parties | The People of the State of Illinois, ex relatione Robert C. Bristol,v.John Pearson, Judge of the Seventh Judicial Circuit of the State of Illinois. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Where a writ of mandamus is delivered to a judge or other person to whom it is directed, and he refuses to obey it, an attachment will issue for contempt of court.
A writ of mandamus, like a rule, may be served by an attorney, or any other person.
Where an alternative writ of mandamus has been served upon a defendant, and he neglects to return it, a peremptory writ may issue, without taking a rule against the defendant, to return the alternative writ.
An attachment from the Supreme Court, for contempt, may be directed “To any and all sheriffs of all counties of the state of Illinois.”
Where a defendant has entered into a recognisance for his appearance in court from day to day, he has waived all objections as to the manner in which he was brought into court.
The Supreme Court does not entertain a doubt of its jurisdiction to award a writ of mandamus to a circuit judge. a
An ex-judge cannot be compelled to sign a bill of exceptions, or to do other acts appertaining to the office of judge, after he has ceased to occupy that station; but, for contempt of court, in refusing to obey a writ of mandamus requiring him to sign a bill of exceptions, while he was judge, the court may punish him, notwithstanding his resignation of his judicial office.
Where a judge had refused to obey a writ of mandamus requiring him to sign a bill of exceptions, and had subsequently resigned his office, the Supreme Court refused to discharge him from custody after his resignation, and fined him $100 for his contempt, and adjudged that he should pay the costs of all the proceedings against him.
An officer who pursues a person fleeing from the process of the Supreme Court to a distant county, and brings him back, is entitled to the regular fees for serving the process and for mileage, and no more. Other necessary expenses in arresting the defendant can not be allowed him.
At the June term, 1840, of this court, the counsel for the relator filed the following affidavit, and moved for an attachment against the defendant for contempt of court, in disobeying the writ of mandamus mentioned in the affidavit:
“STATE OF ILLINOIS, COOK COUNTY, ss.
J. Young Scammon doth solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm, that at the April term of the Circuit Court of Cook county, held at Chicago, in said county, in the year eighteen hundred and forty, this affiant delivered, in person, in open court, to John Pearson, judge of said court, the original writ of mandamus of which the foregoing and within is a true copy,a1 and presented to him a copy of the bill of exceptions therein mentioned, to sign, to wit, on the twenty-fifth day of April last past, in a most respectful manner, and thereupon said judge caused the clerk of said court to enter the order hereto annexed, marked A, and made a part of this affidavit; and afterwards, to wit, on the ____ day of May, A. D. eighteen hundred and forty, during said term of the court, said judge caused the following papers, marked B, to be served upon this affiant, by the sheriff of Cook county, and compelled this affiant to appear and answer the same, which he did. And thereupon the said judge declared that he should not sign said bill of exceptions, and did not sign the same, and has not since signed it, as this affiant is informed, and believes to be true.
J. YOUNG SCAMMON.”
“Affirmed to according to law, May 29th, 1840, before the clerk of the Cook Circuit Court, and the seal of said court affixed.
+-----------------------------------+
¦[L. S.]¦RICHD. J. HAMILTON, Clk. ”¦
+-----------------------------------+
“Ordered by the court, that a rule be entered against J. Young Scammon, an attorney of this court, to show cause why he should not be fined or imprisoned, or both, for a contempt of this court, by Saturday next, at 10 o'clock, A. M.”
“Ordered by the court, that a rule be entered against J. Young Scammon, an attorney of this court, to show cause why he should not be fined or imprisoned, or both, for a contempt of this court, by Saturday next, at 10 o'clock, A. M.
A true copy of the record of the Cook Circuit Court of April 25th, A. D. 1840.
+-------------------------------------+
¦Attest,¦RICHARD J. HAMILTON, Clerk. ¦
+-------------------------------------+
The sheriff of Cook county will execute the above rule.
R. J. HAMILTON, Clerk.
+-------------------------------------+
¦A true copy.¦ ¦
+------------+------------------------¦
¦Attest, ¦I. R. GAVIN, Sheriff. ”¦
+-------------------------------------+
B.
“APRIL TERM, 1840.
+------------------------------------+
¦_ ¦)¦ ¦
+-----------------+-+----------------¦
¦THE PEOPLE ¦)¦ ¦
+-----------------+-+----------------¦
¦v. ¦)¦Contempt, etc. ¦
+-----------------+-+----------------¦
¦J. YOUNG SCAMMON.¦)¦ ¦
+-----------------+-+----------------¦
¦_ ¦)¦ ¦
+------------------------------------+
In the matter of the service of a writ of mandamus upon the Hon. John Pearson, judge of the seventh judicial circuit, in open court.
Interrogatory first. Did you not, before service of this writ of mandamus (in the case of Phillips v. Bristol) upon the judge of said circuit, in open court, know that it had been, and would again be considered, by the judge of said court, a contempt to serve the same in open court by an attorney?
Interrogatory second. If so, why did you, against the known views of the judge, proceed again to serve said writ in open court?
Interrogatory third. With whom, if any, have you counseled on this subject, and who has advised, counseled or directed you to serve this writ?
Interrogatory fourth. If you have taken advice of any judge, say of whom?”
The motion was allowed, and the following writ of attachment issued:
“STATE OF ILLINOIS, SUPREME COURT:
The People of the State of Illinois, to any and all Sheriffs of all Counties of the State of Illinois, greeting:
We command you, and each of you, that you take the body of John Pearson, and that you have him before the Supreme Court of the state of Illinois, at Springfield, forthwith, to answer for a contempt of said court, in refusing to obey a peremptory mandamus issued out of the said court, and to him directed and delivered, and have you then and there this writ.
Witness William Wilson, chief justice of our said Supreme Court, at Springfield, this 10th day of June, A. D. 1840.
+---------------------------------------+
¦[L. S.]¦J. M. DUNCAN, Clerk S. C., ¦
+-------+-------------------------------¦
¦ ¦Per JAS. H. MATHENY, D. C. ”¦
+---------------------------------------+
The writ was returned with the defendant in custody. The returns indorsed on the writ were as follows:
“ June 19th, 1840.
Served by delivering the body of the within named, to James Maxcy, deputy sheriff of Sangamon county.
+-----------------+
¦For serving, ¦.50¦
+-----------------+
JOSEPH MAXWELL.
Shff. Clay County.
Per R. MOSELEY,
Deputy Sheriff of Clay County.”
“Executed by taking the body of John Pearson, who is in my custody.
Deputy Shff. of Sangamon County.
For G. ELKIN,
Shff. of Sangamon County.”
The defendant asked for time, and gave bail for his appearance from day to day.
The defendant then moved to quash the writ of attachment. This motion was overruled. He then filed the following motion:
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦_ ¦)¦ ¦
+------------------------+-+---------------------------------------¦
¦“IN THE MATTER OF JOHN ¦)¦ ¦
+------------------------+-+---------------------------------------¦
¦PEARSON, ¦)¦ ¦
+------------------------+-+---------------------------------------¦
¦ads. ¦)¦ ¦
+------------------------+-+---------------------------------------¦
¦THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE ¦)¦Supreme Court, Ill., June term, 1840. ¦
+------------------------+-+---------------------------------------¦
¦OF ILLINOIS, ATTACHED TO¦)¦ ¦
+------------------------+-+---------------------------------------¦
¦ANSWER FOR CONTEMPT ¦)¦ ¦
+------------------------+-+---------------------------------------¦
¦OF THIS COURT. ¦)¦ ¦
+------------------------+-+---------------------------------------¦
¦_ ¦)¦ ¦
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
And now at this day comes the said Pearson, by Gatewood and Douglass, his attorneys and counsel, and moves the court to be discharged from custody;
1. Because the first writ of mandamus in this matter was not duly served upon the defendant, being handed by counsel, and not by any officer of this court authorized to execute process: Blac. Com., 357, 362; Bac. Abr., title Sheriff; R. L., 574 sec. 5, 578 sec. 1, 487 sec. 2, 119 secs. 3 and 4, 149 sec. 11, first part.
2. Because the said defendant was not notified of the application for the peremptory mandamus, by the rule of this court served upon him, requiring him to return the said first writ of mandamus: Bac. Abr., title Mandamus D and authorities; Salk., 434; 3 Com. Dig., 39.
3. Because in this case, the defendant had signed a bill of exceptions in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Kendall
...of S.F., 87 Cal. 267, 275, 25 P. 433 (1890); In re Cary, 10 F. 622, 631 (S.D.N.Y.1882); Gorham v. Luckett, 45 Ky. 638 (1846); People v. Pearson, 4 Ill. 270 (1841); Floyd v. Barker, 77 Eng. Rep. 1305 (K.B.1607); see also 3 William Hawkins, A Treatise of the Pleas of the Crown ch. 8 § 74 (7th......
-
Pulliam v. Allen, 82-1432
...for violating the writ. See In re Smith, 2 Cal.App. 158, 83 P. 167 (1905); State v. Williams, 7 Rob. 252 (La.1844); People ex rel. Bristol v. Pearson, 4 Ill. 270 (1841). And although courts properly are reluctant to impose costs against a judge for actions taken in good-faith performance of......
-
State ex rel. Priddy v. Gibson
... ... State ex rel. v. Philips, 96 Mo. 570; Merrell on ... Mandamus, secs. 192, 50, 80; People v. Hawes, 25 ... Ill.App. 326; People v. Hawes, 30 Ill.App. 94. (3) ... The fact that Judge Gibson's term has expired since he ... was served ... ...
-
State ex rel. Guinan v. Jarrott
...Court, 27 Mo. 331; State v. County Court, 41 Mo. 224; State ex rel. v. Field, 37 Mo.App. 95; Collins v. Christian, 92 Va. 731; People v. Pearson, 3 Scam. 270; People Hawes, 25 Ill.App. 326; People v. Hawes, 30 Ill.App. 94; Ex parte Crane, 5 Peters 189; Delenan v. Brandman, 5 Wend. 132; Davi......