People v. Zazove, No. 15732.

• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois
• Writing for the Court: DUNN
• Citation: 142 N.E. 543,311 Ill. 198
• Parties: PEOPLE v. ZAZOVE.
• Docket Number: No. 15732.
• Decision Date: 19 February 1924

311 Ill. 198
142 N.E. 543

PEOPLE
v.
ZAZOVE.

No. 15732.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 19, 1924.

Error to Superior Court, Cook County; Harry A. Lewis, Judge.

Irving G. Zazove was adjudged guilty of contempt of court, and brings error.

Reversed.

[311 Ill. 199]John J. Healy and Benjamin C. Bachrach, both of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Edward J. Brundage, Atty. Gen., Robert E. Crowe, State's Atty., of Chicago, and Edward C. Fitch, of Springfield (Henry T. Chace, Jr., Edward E. Wilson, and Clyde C. Fisher, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

DUNN, J.

The superior court of Cook county entered an order on May 31, 1923, adjudging Irving G. Zazove guilty of contempt of court, and committed him to the county jail for six months, and he has sued out a writ of error.

The record consists of the order and the bill of exceptions. The order recites that, it appearing to the court that Irving G. Zazove, attorney of record for the plaintiff in the case of Kryza v. Chicago Evening American Publishing Company, has in his possession a certain paper which was offered in evidence in that case, and was also introduced [311 Ill. 200]as an exhibit in the criminal court of Cook county in the case of People v. Zazove, and was, after a rule to show cause entered against certain witnesses in the case of Kryza v. Chicago Evening American, voluntarily shown to the court by Zazove, said paper purporting to be a portion torn from the cover of a magazing by Tee Brown, who alleged that she had written thereon certain names and addresses of witnesses who testified in the case of Kryza v. Chicago Evening American, and it appearing to the court

[142 N.E. 544]

that said paper is important evidence in a certain proceeding pending in this court, wherein a rule has been entered upon certain persons to show cause why they should not be attached for contempt of court, and that Zazove has been repeatedly requested to produce said paper in open court, a notice was duly served upon him that a rule would be entered upon him to produce said paper instanter on May 19, 1923, and he having appeared in open court with counsel, and the rule to produce the paper instanter having been entered against him, and he having been sworn as a witness, and the court having ordered him to produce said paper, and he having refused to produce it, or to allow the court to inspect it, giving as a reason therefor that said paper might tend to incriminate him, the court finds that Zazove is guilty of contempt of court in refusing to answer said questions, or to produce said paper in open court.

The bill of exceptions shows that on May 19, 1923, the plaintiff in error, in response to a notice served upon him that a rule was about to be entered requiring him to produce the paper, appeared in court with his counsel, and there was colloquy in which the court insisted upon the production of the paper. The plaintiff in error declined to produce it on the ground that it would tend to incriminate him, and his counsel stated that until the statute of limitations had run the plaintiff in error was in danger of prosecution for perjury for his testimony in the criminal trial. He further stated that the plaintiff in error ought to give [311 Ill. 201]his answer under oath, and requested the court to enter a rule on him to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt. The court asked the plaintiff in error, ‘Will you turn it over, Mr. Zazove?’ Zazove answered that he stood on his constitutional right. The court remarked, ‘I don't care what your rights are; you refuse to turn it over?’ Zazove answered again, ‘I refuse to turn it over on the ground it tends to incriminate me.’ The court said, ‘All right; I am going to hold you in contempt of court; well, you have already answered the rule now.’ The court, after some talk as to a stay of the mittimus, then sais: ‘One year in the county jail for Mr. Zazove; now stay the execution of the sentence two weeks.’ No order was entered then or at any time until May 31. On the latter date the plaintiff in error appeared in court, and through his counsel asked leave to file his verified answer instanter to show that he was acting in good faith in refusing to produce the paper, believing that it would tend to incriminate him, and relying upon his constitutional right, and also to reduce the penalty. Leave to file the answer was refused and the judgment was entered; the term of imprisonment being six months, instead of one year. Thereupon the plaintiff in error moved the court to vacate the judgment, and asked leave to file his verified petition in support of the motion. The court granted leave to file the petition, but immediately struck it from the files.

The defendant in error contends that there is nothing before this court except the judgment itself, and if the findings are sufficient to sustain the judgment there can be no reversal. The substance of the findings is that the plaintiff in...