Saunderson v. State

• Decision Date: 13 December 1898
• Docket Number: 18,713
• Citation: 52 N.E. 151,151 Ind. 550
• Parties: Saunderson et al. v. The State
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

52 N.E. 151

151 Ind. 550

Saunderson et al. v. The State

No. 18,713

Supreme Court of Indiana

December 13, 1898

From the Benton Circuit Court.

Reversed.

Byron K. Elliott and William F. Elliott, for appellants.

W. A Ketcham, Attorney-General, and A. E. Chizum, for State.

OPINION

Howard, J.

The appellants, who are attorneys of the bar of the Benton Circuit Court, were fined for an alleged indirect contempt of court, in having adopted, at a bar meeting held for that purpose, certain resolutions in relation to the procedure and practice in said court, and in causing such resolutions to be published by sending copies thereof to certain attorneys in other counties of the 30th judicial circuit, of which circuit Benton county forms a part. The proper procedure for bringing before the court persons charged with indirect contempt is found set out in section 1024, Burns' R. S. 1894 (1012, Horner's R. S 1897), as follows: "In all cases of indirect contempt, the person charged therewith shall be entitled, before answering thereto or being punished therefor, to have served upon him a rule of the court against which the alleged contempt may be committed; which said rule shall clearly and distinctly set forth the facts which are alleged to constitute such contempt, and shall specify the time and place of such facts with such reasonable certainty as to inform the defendant of the nature and circumstances of the charge against him, and shall specify a time and place at which he is required to show cause, in said court, why he should not be attached and punished for such contempt, which time the court shall, on proper showing, extend so as to give the defendant a reasonable and just opportunity to purge himself of such contempt. No such rule, as hereinbefore provided for, shall ever issue until the facts alleged therein to constitute such contempt shall have been brought to the knowledge of the court by an information duly verified by the oath or affirmation of some officers of the court or other responsible person."

The record does not show that any of the steps thus provided for in the statute were taken in the case before us. There was laid before the court no sworn statement of the facts alleged to constitute the contempt. Neither was there served upon the appellants any rule to show cause "which said rule," as required by the statute, "shall clearly and distinctly set forth the facts which are alleged to constitute such contempt." See Stewart v. State, 140 Ind. 7, 39 N.E. 508. It is true that there is set out in the record what purports to be an indictment, presentment or report of the grand jury,--it is not clear which,--stating certain facts as to the alleged contempt. This document is signed by the prosecuting attorney, but not sworn to by him, nor based upon any affidavit by any one else; neither is it "indorsed by the foreman of the grand jury 'A...