State ex rel. Allison v. Marion Municipal Court Room 4
| Decision Date | 27 September 1944 |
| Docket Number | 28021. |
| Citation | 56 N.E.2d 493,222 Ind. 602 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. ALLISON v. MARION MUNICIPAL COURT ROOM 4 et al. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Ira Holmes, of Indianapolis, for relator.
John L. Niblack, of Indianapolis, for respondents.
Upon relator's petition we issued a temporary writ of prohibition with rule to show cause why it should not be made permanent. Respondents' answer does not question the facts stated in the petition. Upon citation for indirect criminal contempt by violations of rules of the Municipal Court, the relator herein filed his verified answer specifically denying said violations and disclaiming any intent to interfere with the administration of justice by, or to cast disrespect upon, the said court or the respondent judge and relator moved for his discharge. The only contention either here or below as to the sufficiency in law of relator's verified answer is grounded upon the first proviso of § 3-910, Burns' 1933, § 887 Baldwin's 1934, which states that the procedure in the Act of 1879, of which this section (later amended) was a part, shall not be 'held to embrace, limit or control any proceeding against any officer or party for contempt for the enforcement of civil rights and remedies.' In other words the Act of 1879 does not apply to civil contempt. But this is not a civil contempt. The action is brought in the name of the State and charges a willful violation of standing rules of the Municipal Court 'all tending to bring this Court and the Honorable John L. Niblack into disrepute and to injure the administration of justice in the eyes of the citizens in the said County and State.' Clearly relator was charged with criminal contempt. Smith, Administrator v. Miller, Guardian, 1935, 209 Ind. 55, 197 N.E. 892; Denny v. State, 1932, 203 Ind. 682, 182 N.E. 313; State ex rel. v. Branner, 1910, 174 Ind. 684, 93 N.E. 70. These cases hold that on a citation for indirect criminal contempt verified answer of the one so accused, if upon its face sufficient in law to purge contempt, entitles him to discharge. If the judge deems it insufficient in law the one cited may be punished by fine or imprisonment with right to review by appeal. The judge may not, as the respondent judge herein proposes, set the matter for hearing to determine the truth of the facts alleged in the answer of the accused. If they are materially false, he may be prosecuted for perjury upon affidavit or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Public Service Commission v. Marion Circuit Court
...rates. State ex rel. Indianapolis Rys. v. Superior Court, 1947, 225 Ind. 301, 74 N.E.2d 912. See also State ex rel. Allison v. Marion Municipal Court, 1944, 222 Ind. 602, 56 N.E.2d 493; State ex rel. Feeney v. Superior Court of Marion County, 1934, 206 Ind. 78, 188 N.E. 486; State ex rel. K......
-
State ex rel. Zeller v. Montgomery Circuit Court
...State ex rel. Allison v. Marion Municipal Court, 1944, 222 Ind. 602, 603, 56 N.E.2d 493, and refused to go that way. More recently in State ex rel. Emmert, Attorney General, et al. Hamilton Circuit Court et al., 1945, 61 N.E.2d 182, we again refused the 'short cut.' On this point there is n......
-
Tusing v. State
...such an answer, the defendant must be discharged, unless the answer is insufficient as a matter of law. State ex rel. Allison v. Marion Municipal Court, 1944, 222 Ind. 602, 56 N.E.2d 493. Three. In determining whether the appellant's answer is sufficient as a matter of law, the court will b......
-
Harris v. State
... ... 602 HARRIS v. STATE. No. 28122.Supreme Court of IndianaNovember 15, 1945 ... prosecuted for perjury. State ex rel. Allison v. Marion ... Municipal Court, 1944, ... ...