State Ex Rel. Mcgregor v. Peacock
| Decision Date | 25 January 1934 |
| Citation | 113 Fla. 816,152 So. 616 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. McGREGOR v. PEACOCK, County Judge. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Original proceeding in prohibition by the State, on the relation of M S. McGregor, against J. E. Peacock, County Judge in and for Volusia County.
Rule nisi quashed.
COUNSEL M. S. McGregor, of De Land, for petitioner.
Elmer R. Jones, of De Land, for respondent.
This is a case of original jurisdiction in which the petitioner, an attorney at law, applied for a writ of prohibition to inhibit the county judge of Volusia county, who is respondent, from further proceeding to hear and determine a contempt matter instituted with reference to petitioner.
Upon demurrer to the petition in prohibition, a majority of the court hold that the demurrer should be sustained and the rule nisi in prohibition should be quashed, on the ground that under section 4161, Comp. Gen. Laws, 2534, R. G. S., the county judge has jurisdiction to determine in the first instance whether or not the acts set forth in the citation for contempt do, or do not, constitute a contempt under the circumstances alleged. If the county judge should exceed his powers in the premises and adjudge petitioner guilty of a contempt because of matters and things charged and shown which are, in law, no basis for a contempt adjudication, an appropriate remedy in due form of law exists for the redress of any palpable error or abuse which may be made to appear, either as to law or fact. Baumgartner v Joughin, 105 Fla. 335, 141 So. 185; Id., 107 Fla. 858 143 So. 436; Wilson v. Joughin, 105 Fla. 353, 141 So. 182; State ex rel. Brooks v. Freeland, Circuit Judge, 103 Fla. 663, 138 So. 27.
Judicial wisdom and the experiences of the past would seem to demand that the extraordinary powers given to courts to punish for contempts be not used except to prevent actual and direct obstruction of, or interference with, the administration of justice, by the acts of attorneys at law in the manner or means used to present their controversies in the courts.
This is especially true of cases where attorneys have felt it their duty to invoke the provisions of our statutes allowing a challenge to be interposed against judges on the ground of their alleged prejudice. In such cases attorneys at law, when acting in good faith, should not be unduly embarrassed in the performance of their official responsibilities by being...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Giblin v. Sullivan
... ... direct obstruction or interference with the administration of ... justice. State ex rel. McGregor v. Peacock, 113 Fla ... 816, 152 So. 616 ... Determination of ... the facts, and inferences to be drawn therefrom, is ... necessarily ... ...
-
Weinstein, In re
...wrongful conduct as amounts to an actual and direct obstruction to, or interference with the administration of justice, * * *." State v. Peacock, 113 Fla. 816, text 817, 152 So. 616, "Judicial wisdom and the experiences of the past would seem to demand that the extraordinary powers given to......
-
Scussel v. Kelly
...then urges that the application for prohibition is premature. The respondent cites and relies upon the case of State ex rel. McGregor v. Peacock, 1934, 113 Fla. 816, 152 So. 616, in which an attorney was cited for contempt allegedly committed in a proceeding to disqualify a county judge. In......
-
O'Brien v. State
...an offending act is contemptuous. In this regard it was observed in Zarate at p. 3: 'When we adhere to the enunciation contained in State v. Peacock, supra, we are brought to answer the question, whether or not the offending allegation was one which could reasonably result in 'actual and di......