State ex rel. Hoosier Engineering Co. v. Thornton

• Decision Date: 03 June 1952
• Docket Number: No. 10431,10431
• Citation: 137 W.Va. 230,72 S.E.2d 203
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: , 22 Lab.Cas. P 67,210 STATE ex rel. HOOSIER ENGINEERING CO. v. THORNTON.

Page 203

72 S.E.2d 203

137 W.Va. 230, 22 Lab.Cas. P 67,210

STATE ex rel. HOOSIER ENGINEERING CO. v. THORNTON.

No. 10431.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted April 22, 1952.

Decided June 3, 1952.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. 'A trial for criminal contempt is a quasi criminal proceeding, and the rules of evidence in criminal trials apply thereto. In such trial the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.' State [ex rel. Continental Coal Co.] v. Bittner, 102 W.Va. 677, Point 2, syllabus .

2. In a prosecution for contempt of court for an alleged violation of an injunction decree, not committed in the presence of the court, the defendant is entitled to be fully and plainly informed of the character and cause of the accusation.

Poffenbarger & Bowles, Martin C. Bowles, Charleston, for plaintiff in error.

Spilman, Thomas & Battle, Howard R. Klostermeyer, Charleston, for defendant in error.

LOVINS, Judge.

Defendant, L. D. Thornton, complains of the final judgment of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, entered on August 9, 1951, finding defendant guilty of contempt of court, and sentencing him to confinement in the Kanawha County jail for a period of six months and imposing a fine of $500. To this judgment, as later modified by the court on its own motion, this Court granted a writ of error and supersedeas on October 8, 1951.

On August 4, 1951, Hoosier Engineering Company, a corporation, after issuance of process on the same day, filed a bill in chancery, supported by affidavits, in the Circuit Court of Kanawah County against defendant, individually and as president of Construction and General Laborers Local Union No. 1353, and others not involved in this proceeding, alleging the existence of a labor dispute, acts of violence and irreparable injury to plaintiff, and praying that the defendant, and other parties, be restrained from intimidating employees of the plaintiff engineering company, and from doing other acts designed to prevent performance of certain construction work, in Kanawha County.

On the same day the circuit court granted the injunction, prohibiting the defendant Thornton and others from attacking, assaulting, coercing, threatening or intimidating any employee of the plaintiff; from damaging or destroying any property belonging to the plaintiff; from congregating near the garage or vehicles of plaintiff; from trespassing upon property of plaintiff or upon or within twenty-five feet of property upon which plaintiff's work was to be performed; and from doing or committing any other unlawful act to prevent the plaintiff from performing its contract. Peaceful picketing was provided for by the decree.

The injuncton decree was served upon defendant on August 6, 1951, at 8:45 A.M., by delivery of a copy thereof to him personally. A copy of the decree was posted on an International struck owned by the engineering company on August 4, 1951, and at 1:00 A.M., August 6, 1951, a copy of the decree had been posted on the door of the garage occupied by the engineering company.

On August 7, 1951, pursuant to a petition filed by Hoosier Engineering Company, under the same style as the original bill of complaint, defendant, and others not here involved, were summoned under a rule issued by the Circuit Court of Kanawha County to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court for violating the above mentioned injunction decree. The rule was made returnable August 9, 1951, at 9:30 A.M. On the return day of the rule a joint answer of defendant and other parties named in the rule was filed, denying the allegations contained in the petition praying for the rule. Before the hearing on the rule began, the trial court called to the attention of counsel the fact that the proceeding should be styled 'State of West Virginia at the relation of Hoosier Engineering Company', and permitted an amendment to that effect, over defendant's objection. Immediately thereafter, counsel for defendant moved the court for a continuance, upon the ground that counsel had not had sufficient time to investigate, talk with witnesses, and prepare the case for trial. The trial court overruled the motion, to which ruling defendant by counsel excepted. Counsel for defendant then made a motion for the separation of witnesses, and this motion was also overruled, and exception was duly saved.

At the hearing relator, Hoosier Engineering Company, offered testimony of a number of its employees to detail the disturbances which took place on August 6th and 7th, 1951, which were alleged to have been violations of the injunction decree, and particularly with reference to the conduct of defendant. We find very little evidence tending to establish knowledge or information on the part of defendant as to the issuance of the injunction decree, and none as to the contents thereof, prior to the service of the copy of the decree on him at 8:45, on the morning of the sixth of August. Defendant testified that he had no such information before the service of the copy of the decree. Since the trial court, however, found that defendant had actual knowledge thereof, the facts will be dealt with as if defendant did obtain such information before 8:45 o'clock on the morning of the sixth of August, as indicated in the testimony of Roy Allen, who was an employee of the engineering company and testified on behalf of that company. Defendant could not, of course, be guilty of contempt in regard to an act occurring before he had received notice or information of the issuance of the injunction against him.

There is no question that a large number of men belonging to the union of which defendant was president, was gathered at or in the vicinity of the garage of the engineering company, in the City of Charleston, prior to 8:45 on the morning of the sixth. Apparently the men began to gather there about six o'clock and continued to arrive until after ten o'clock, when the trucks of the engineering company left the garage. It seems certain that certain acts were committed there, both before and after 8:45, which would constitute violations of the injunction decree, assuming that proper notice of the injunction had been received by the parties committing the acts. The problem here is to determine whether defendant committed or participated in the commission of any such act or acts after having received information of the issuance of the injunction.

The principal acts claimed to constitute such violations during the time the men were congregated together about the garage, consisted of threats made against the employees of the engineering company; the moving of a pickup truck belonging to the engineering company so as to block the removal of other trucks from the garage; an attempt to overturn another truck which an employee of the engineering company undertook to remove from the garage; an attack upon an employee of the company while attempting to remove a truck from the garage; the throwing at the employees of the engineering company of certain objects including 'tomatoes, apples, hard biscuits and so forth.'; and threatening gestures with shovels, rubber hose and other weapons. The exact hour of the commission of these alleged violations can not be determined with any degree of accuracy. They all occurred before ten o'clock of the morning of the sixth.

Considerable evidence relates to the interference, by three or four of the members of the union, with the removal of a truck from the garage about ten o'clock of the morning of the sixth. City police officers were on the scene at that time and prevented any serious trouble. Defendant was across the street from the garage at the time and immediately crossed the street with the police to the truck. But there is no indication as to whether he was opposing the action of the police or assisting in preventing any improper action by the members of the union. Thereafter the trucks of the engineering company moved out of the garage, loaded with its employees, and were driven to a point near where work was to be performed. There is no question that defendant stayed in the vicinity of the garage of the engineering company until after the trucks were moved out, and that he moved about among the members of his union then assembled there. No person testified to the effect, however, that he heard defendant make any threat against employees of the engineering company, or that anyone saw him engaged in any act interfering with that company's employees or removal of its trucks, or even heard him say anything to any member of the union indicating his approval of any such action. On the other hand, there is very substantial evidence showing that members of the union continued to arrive at the scene until after the trucks left the garage, and that defendant remained there, after having been served with a copy of the injunction decree, to advise them, as well as those previously present, of the issuance of the injunction and of the order limiting the actions of the union to peaceful picketing and, in general, to prevent any violation of that order.

After the trucks of the engineering company left the garage a number of union members, riding in probably twelve or thirteen automobiles, followed them to the vicinity of Grapevine Hollow, several miles from Charleston, and defendant drove one of the automobiles carrying union members. These cars parked a distance estimated at from one hundred and fifty to three hundred feet from where the trucks parked. No violence ensued, through some threats appear to have been made by some of the union men, not identified, who arrived in the automobiles. Such threats were discontinued upon orders from defendant. After alighting from his automobile defendant approached Roy Allen, who apparently was in charge of the engineering company's employees and who belonged to a different union, apparently in an effort to negotiate a settlement of the differences. Allen...