State ex rel. Fischer v. District Court of Hennepin County

• Decision Date: 16 June 1896
• Docket Number: 10,169--(327)
• Citation: 67 N.W. 796,65 Minn. 146
• Parties: STATE OF MINNESOTA ex rel. ROBERT E. FISCHER v. DISTRICT COURT OF HENNEPIN COUNTY
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

67 N.W. 796

65 Minn. 146

STATE OF MINNESOTA ex rel. ROBERT E. FISCHER v. DISTRICT COURT OF HENNEPIN COUNTY

Nos. 10,169--(327)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

June 16, 1896

Certiorari to review a judgment of the district court for Hennepin county adjudging relator guilty of criminal contempt, entered after hearing before Elliott, J. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Merrick & Merrick, for relator.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The relator was convicted of a criminal contempt, not committed in the presence of the court, by the judgment of the district court of Hennepin county, and committed to jail for 60 days. The alleged act constituting the contempt was approaching and attempting to influence a juror in reference to his verdict in a cause then on trial. The case comes here on certiorari and two errors are assigned:

1. That the affidavit which is the basis of the contempt proceedings is defective in substance, in that the facts stated, if true do not constitute, in law, a contempt of court, for the reason that it is not directly charged therein that the relator knew that the person approached was a juror in the case. It is true, as claimed by relator, that, in cases of constructive contempts, an affidavit or other evidence must be presented to the court or officer of the facts constituting the alleged contempt, and if the facts, as presented to the court by affidavit or other evidence, do not, in law, constitute a contempt, a conviction therefor cannot be sustained. But the affidavit need not be in any particular form, or as certain and direct in its allegations of the ultimate facts constituting the contempt, as is required in an indictment. It is sufficient if the affidavit states only evidentiary facts, from which the ultimate facts constituting the contempt must necessarily be inferred. Such method of stating the facts constituting the contempt is not to be commended. Tested by the rule we have stated, we are of the opinion that the affidavit was sufficient. It appears from the record, that the relator was represented by counsel on the hearing, and that no objections were made as to the sufficiency of the affidavit; and, after judgment, it will be held sufficient, unless it is so defective in its statement of facts as to be equivalent to the absence of an affidavit. Such is not this case; for, from the facts stated in the affidavit, it may fairly be inferred that the relator knew that the person approached was...