Ricketts v. State
| Decision Date | 28 November 1903 |
| Citation | 77 S.W. 1076 |
| Parties | RICKETTS v. STATE. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
W. H. Cummings and Robert T. Cameron, for plaintiff in error. The Attorney General, for the State.
Plaintiff in error, upon petition of the district attorney charging him with contempt of court, was attached, tried, and convicted, and adjudged to pay a fine of $50 and undergo confinement in the county jail for a term of 10 days, from which judgment he has prosecuted an appeal in the nature of a writ of error to this court, and assigns error.
The conduct of plaintiff in error alleged in the petition as constituting the contempt of which he was found guilty consists of his action in procuring a witness for the state in a prosecution against him in said court for tippling to falsely testify that a sale of liquor made by plaintiff in error to the witness, and then being inquired into, occurred more than 12 months before the indictment was preferred, so as to make the same appear to be barred by the statute of limitation applicable to such offense, when in fact the sale was made within that time.
The witness was induced to give this false testimony by persuasion and threats of personal violence upon the part of the plaintiff in error before the trial.
The first contention of plaintiff in error is that the facts stated do not constitute contempt of court within the statutes upon this subject.
It is unsound. A case of unlawful abuse of and interference with the process and proceedings of the court within section 5918, subsec. 4, of the Code (Shannon's Ed.), is clearly presented.
Anything done for the purpose of preventing a witness duly subpœnaed from attending court, or, when in attendance, from testifying to the truth and the whole truth, constitutes a contempt under the statute of the most serious and hurtful character, which should always be vigilantly inquired into and severely punished.
It is difficult to conceive of a more willful and corrupt interference with the process and proceedings of a court of justice than is here presented. Contemnor not only interfered with and prevented the witness then under subpœna from testifying the truth, but practically in the presence of the court caused him to commit the crime of perjury, thus in the most effective way obstructing its proceedings and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Warren
...import are the decisions of the Supreme Court of Tennessee in Maples v. State, 565 S.W.2d 202 (Tenn.1978), and Ricketts v. State, 111 Tenn. 380, 77 S.W. 1076 (1903). In Maples v. State, defendant instituted a divorce action, claiming that his wife was a resident. After being awarded a divor......
-
Melton v. Commonwealth
... ... and jurisdiction of Judge Field to proceed against Melton for ... contempt on the state of facts shown in the information and ... supporting evidence, and, if Judge Field was without ... jurisdiction to issue the rule and hear and ... L.R.A. 254, 60 Am.St.Rep. 691; Sherman v. People, ... 210 Ill. 552, 71 N.E. 618; Nichols v. Judge, 130 ... Mich. 187, 89 N.W. 691; Ricketts v. State, 111 Tenn ... 380, 77 S.W. 1076; Fisher v. McDaniel, 9 Wyo. 457, ... 64 P. 1056, 87 Am.St.Rep. 971; Bradley v. State, 111 ... Ga ... ...
-
Maples v. State
...held that the imposition of a contempt citation does not preclude a later criminal prosecution. In the case of Ricketts v. State, 111 Tenn. 380, 77 S.W. 1076 (1903), it was emphasized that the offenses of contempt and subornation of perjury ". . . created upon different principles, for diff......
-
Coleman v. State
...rule has fallen into desuetude, as indicated by two recent cases. Scott & Light v. State, 109 Tenn. 390, 71 S. W. 824; Rickets v. State, 111 Tenn. 380, 77 S. W. 1076; and other Tennessee cases referred to infra. The question was not discussed in any of these cases, but evidence was heard in......