Percival v. State

• Decision Date: 17 September 1895
• Citation: 64 N.W. 221,45 Neb. 741
• Parties: PERCIVAL v. STATE.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

45 Neb. 741

64 N.W. 221

PERCIVAL

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Sept. 17, 1895.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. A publication regarding a cause, during its pendency in court, which tends to corrupt or embarrass the administration of justice, and to produce a prejudice in the minds of the public with respect to the merits of the cause, is a contempt, and punishable.

2. Where, in a proceeding for an indirect or constructive contempt, consisting of the publication in a newspaper, the article upon which the complaint is based is indefinite in its meaning and application, and is not libelous per se, and does not, unless aided by an innuendo, apply to the court, nor reflect upon its integrity or purpose, and, in so far as any reflection upon the court is concerned, is capable of an innocent interpretation; and the defendant, in an answer sworn to by him, positively asserts that he used the language employed in the article in a meaning other than libelous, and with no intent to reflect upon either the integrity or honesty of purpose of the judge, or to embarrass or impede the administration of justice,--such answer will be taken as conclusive.

Error to district court, Douglas county; Scott, Judge.

Washington W. Percival was convicted of contempt, and brings error. Reversed.Edward W. Simeral and E. R. Duffie, for plaintiff in error.

A. S. Churchill, Atty. Gen., for the State.

HARRISON, J.

In this case the plaintiff in error was proceeded against for contempt, resulting in his conviction and sentence. It appears that there were two trials or hearings, a judgment of conviction and sentence upon the first being set aside, upon motion of plaintiff in error, and a new hearing awarded. It is stated that the affidavit or complaint, the basis of the first trial, on hearing of the proceedings, differed from the one upon which there was a final hearing; but however this may be, the complaint which was presented here as containing the charge of which plaintiff in error was convicted is as follows: “Comes now J. L. Kaley, county attorney in and for the county of Douglas, and state of Nebraska, and, in the name of the state of Nebraska, gives the court to understand and be informed: Who, being sworn, on his oath says that Washington D. Percival, on or about the 9th day of March, 1894, in the county aforesaid, then and there wrongfully, unlawfully, and maliciously, for the purpose and with the intent of bringing the district court in and for the county of Douglas and state of Nebraska, and then and there being presided over by Judge C. R. Scott, one of the judges of said district court, into disrepute and ridicule, and to cause the people to have a contempt for said court; and for the purpose of causing it to be believed that said court was corrupt, and influenced by corrupt motives; and for the purpose of destroying the integrity, honor, and efficiency of said court in the administration of public justice; and for the purpose of vilifying and traducing said court, and to thwart the due administration of justice in said court; and with the intent willfully to obstruct the proceedings and hinder the due administration of justice in a suit then and there and therein pending before said court, to wit, the cause of the State of Nebraska vs. T. T. Jardine, and then and there being undisposed of in said court,--then and there wrote and published, and caused to be published, in the Omaha Evening Bee (being a daily newspaper published in the city of Omaha on said 9th day of March, 1894, and of general and extensive circulation, and being generally read in said city of Omaha, and in the county of Douglas, and 4th judicial district of the state of Nebraska, and throughout the state of Nebraska, in which said court, presided over by said Judge C. R. Scott, then and there being the criminal section of the said district court, and was and is one of the courts of said judicial district), of and concerning said court, the following false, scandalous, contemptuous, and defamatory matter, that is to say: ‘Justice without equality. Sentences adjusted to fit the men. One party to a crime gets a five-year sentence in the penitentiary, while another gets the benefit of a pull. Persons who were around the criminal section of the district court yesterday afternoon witnessed a striking illustration of what it is to be possessed of a pull. The same persons were also given an illustration of how easy it is for a man to keep out of the penitentiary if the pull is worked for all it is worth,’--intending, then and there and thereby, wrongfully, unlawfully, and contemptuously to cause it to be believed that said court, presided over by said Judge C. R. Scott, was corrupt, and influenced by corrupt motives.” After some preliminary pleas were filed on behalf of plaintiff in error, and heard and disposed of by the court, an affidavit in the nature of an answer, which was verified positively, was filed for the party charged, in which he denied that he wrote,...