Russell v. Mandell
| Decision Date | 31 May 1904 |
| Citation | 136 Mich. 624,99 N.W. 864 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | RUSSELL v. MANDELL, Circuit Judge. |
Original proceedings in mandamus by Frank H. Russell, as administrator, against Henry A. Mandell, as circuit judge of Wayne county. Writ denied.
S. E Engle, for relator.
Allan H. Frazer, for respondent.
The relator had a suit pending in the circuit court for the county of Wayne against the Pemberthy Injector Company and S. Olin Johnson. The action was based upon the negligence of the defendants, through which it is claimed that relator's decedent lost his life. Relator filed a petition with the respondent, charging the defendant Johnson with contempt of court, in attempting to intimidate some of the witnesses, or proposed witnesses, in the case. The petition was based wholly upon information and belief, and was accompanied by affidavits. The order to show cause was issued, and answer of Mr. Johnson duly filed. The relator demanded interrogatories. The respondent appointed Mr. Allan H. Frazer, ex prosecuting attorney and an officer of the court, to examine into the case and file interrogatories. Mr S.E. Engle, on behalf of the relator, presented to the court 77 interrogatories. Mr. Frazer examined the affidavits, and prepared 26 interrogatories, covering specifically the charges made by the affidavits. Mr. Johnson answered all these interrogatories. The court declined to examine the interrogatories on behalf of the relator, and accepted those proposed by Mr. Frazer. The relator by this proceeding seeks to compel the respondent to consider and allow the interrogatories propounded by him. The respondent returns that the proceeding was treated by the relator as a criminal not a civil, one. The relator neither in his petition nor in any affidavits claimed damages as a result of the contempt. The intimidation of witnesses is naturally a criminal matter--one in which the damages are to the public and the courts as well as to litigants. The affidavits, not the petition, conferred jurisdiction upon the court. Without the affidavits the proceeding would have been quashed. In re E. T. Wood, 82 Mich. 82, 45 N.W. 1113. Allegations in the petition not supported by the affidavits will be ignored. When one charges another with the serious crime of interfering with the due course of justice by corrupting or intimidating witnesses, he must have positive evidence to present to the court upon which to base...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robertson v. State
... ... Tex.Cr.R. 440, 144 S.W. 962; In re Rice (C.C.) 181 ... F. 217; State v. Gallup, 1 Kan.App. 618, 42 P. 406; ... Russell v. Wayne, Circuit Judge, 136 Mich. 624, 99 ... N.W. 864 ... In ... Belangee v. State, 97 Neb. 184, 149 N.W. 415, cited ... above, ... ...
-
Creekmore v. United States
... ... necessary under two sections of the Michigan statutes. The ... same is true of Russell v. Mandell, Circuit Judge, ... 136 Mich. 624, 99 N.W. 864 ... In ... Ludden v. State, 31 Neb. 429, 48 N.W. 61, the text ... is ... ...
-
People v. Henry
...71 N.W.2d 71. Absent a valid affidavit, no jurisdiction attaches. In re Wood (1890), 82 Mich. 75, 45 N.W. 1113; Russell v. Wayne Circuit Judge (1904), 136 Mich. 624, 99 N.W. 864. To be valid, an affidavit must be made by one who has actual knowledge of the facts stated in the affidavit. In ......
-
Contempt of Calcutt, In re
...cause order may issue. Randall v. Genesee Circuit Judge, 336 Mich. 335, 340-341, 57 N.W.2d 906 (1953); see Russell v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 136 Mich. 624, 625-626, 99 N.W. 864 (1904). When, as in this case, the contempt is committed outside the immediate view and presence of the court, this ......