State ex rel. West Virginia-Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. Eno, VIRGINIA-PITTSBURGH

• Decision Date: 01 March 1951
• Docket Number: No. 10285,VIRGINIA-PITTSBURGH,10285
• Citation: 135 W.Va. 473,63 S.E.2d 845
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. WESTCOAL CO. et al. v. ENO et al.

Page 845

63 S.E.2d 845

135 W.Va. 473

STATE ex rel. WEST VIRGINIA-PITTSBURGH COAL CO. et al. v. ENO et al.

No. 10285.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted Jan. 16, 1951.

Decided March 1, 1951.

Syllabus by the Court

1. A 'Motion for continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court under all the circumstances of the case.' Point 2, syllabus, State v. McCoy, 107 W.Va. 163 .

2. The right guaranteed by State and Federal Constitutions to a person charged with a criminal violation to have effective assistance of counsel, cannot be abrogated by denying counsel, if timely employed, sufficient time to adequately prepare for trial.

Charles L. Ihlenfeld, Wheeling, for plaintiffs in error.

Pinsky & Mahan, Abraham Pinsky, and Walter E. Mahan, all of Wellsburg, for defendants in error.

GIVEN, Judge.

Defendants, Charles Eno, as an individual and as President of Local No. 6231, United Mine Workers of America, District No. 6, Paul W. Murphy, as an individual and as Committeeman of Local No. 6231, United Mine Workers of America, District No. 6, and William Fillinger, were convicted of criminal contempt in the Circuit Court of Brooke County, for having violated an injunction decree of that court. A sentence of nine months in the Brooke County jail and a fine of one thousand dollars was imposed upon each of the defendants, on January 20, 1950. A joint petition of defendants, praying a writ of error and supersedeas, was filed in this Court, on the 27th day of February, 1950. The writ prayed for was granted by the Court on the 25th day of May, 1950.

On December 23, 1949, the West Virginia-Pittsburgh Coal Company, a West Virginia corporation, and others, filed their bill of complaint in the Circuit Court of Brooke County, praying an injunction against defendants, Eno, Murphy and others, to require them to refrain from interfering with the production of coal by plaintiffs. A temporary injunction was issued the same day restraining the 'defendants, all named above, their agents, representatives, employees, associates and confederates, * * *.'

'(1) From attacking, assaulting, coercing, obstructing, threatening or intimidating in any manner and at any place any employee or other person working or desiring to work for plaintiff West Virginia-Pittsburgh Coal Company, or any member of the family or household of any such employee or person;

'(2) From destroying or damaging any property, real or personal, belonging to the plaintiff West Virginia-Pittsburgh Coal Company, or to any person working or desiring to work for said plaintiff Coal Company;

'(3) From destroying or damaging any property, real or personal, of any of the individual plaintiffs named above, and those similarly situated;

'(4) From doing any act to prevent the plaintiff West Virginia-Pittsburgh Coal Company from operating its tipples, mine and mining plants, or to prevent the individual plaintiffs named above and those similarly situated and desiring to return to work, from so returning to work and continuing to work for the plaintiff West Virginia-Pittsburgh Coal Company;

'(5) From congregating, assembling or trespassing and continuing to congregate, assemble or trespass upon the premises or property of the said plaintiff West Virginia-Pittsburgh Coal Company;

'(6) From in any way interfering with, disturbing or preventing the normal conduct of the business of the plaintiff West Virginia-Pittsburgh Coal Company, a corporation, or the rights of the individual plaintiffs named above and those similarly situated who may likewise desire the protection of this Court, to work for the plaintiff West Virginia-Pittsburgh Coal Company, and to earn a livelihood for themselves and their families without fear of bodily injury or threats of violence to themselves, their families or their property on account thereof, and from obstructing or interfering with said plaintiffs named above and other employees of said plaintiff West Virginia-Pittsburgh Coal Company, while going to or returning from their working places;

'(7) From in any way interfering with, disturbing or preventing the operation of trucks hauling coal from said mines while on the public highways'.

On the 16th day of January, 1950, the plaintiffs in the injunction proceeding filed their petition therein, praying that a rule issue against Eno, Murphy and Fillinger, and that they be held to answer for contempt of the injunction decree. The petition charged violations of the injunction decree in that Eno and Fillinger '* * * did attack, assault, coerce, obstruct, threaten and intimidate James C. Marker and Robert Campbell, the operator and oiler respectively of a drag line owned by the West Virginia-Pittsburgh Coal Company and operating on its premises in Cross Creek District, Brooke County, West Virginia, and Boyd Sutler and Maurice Jones, the operator and oiler respectively of a stripping shovel being then and there used and operated by the West Virginia-Pittsburgh Coal Company on its premises in Cross Creek District, Brooke County, West Virginia; that the said Paul W. Murphy, as an individual and as Committeeman of said Local Union No. 6231, trespassed upon the premises of the West Virginia-Pittsburgh Coal Company where its operations are being conducted in Brooke County, West Virginia, on the morning of January 13, 1950, between the hours of 12:00 Midnight of January 12-13, 1950 and 5:00 A. M. of January 13, 1950; * * *.'

The petition also charged, 'on information and belief', that Murphy '* * * damaged an oil storage tank, the property of the West Virginia-Pittsburg Coal Company, located on its premises near the St. John's Road in Cross Creek District, Brooke County, West Virginia, by severing an oil line and opening the valves of said storage tank, allowing 17,000 gallons of fuel oil to be emptied into the ground from said tanks and thereby causing damages in the amount of approximately $2,200.00'.

The three defendants were jointly charged with having '* * * congregated, assembled and trespassed upon the premises of the West Virginia-Pittsburgh Coal Company in Cross Creek District, Brooke County, West Virginia, between the hours of 12:00 Midnight January 12-13, 1950, and 5:00 A. M. January 13, 1950.

'That the said Charles Eno, as an individual and as President of said Local Union No. 6231, Paul W. Murphy, as an individual and as Committeeman of said Local Union No. 6231, and William Fillinger, between the hours of 12:00 Midnight, January 12-13, 1950 and 5:00 A. M. January 13, 1950, interfered with, disturbed and prevented the norman conduct of the business of the plaintiff West Virginia-Pittsburgh Coal Company and its employees who were working on the stripping operations of said Company in Cross Creek District, Brooke County, West Virginia, by the aforesaid acts.'

A rule in contempt was issued by the circuit court, made returnable at the court house of Brooke County on the 20th day of January, 1950, at 9:30 A.M. An attested copy of the order was served upon Eno and Murphy on the 18th of January, and upon Fillinger on the 19th of January 1950. In the forenoon of January 19, 1950, defendants consulted Charles L. Ihlenfeld, an attorney at law with offices in Wheeling, West Virginia, approximately sixteen miles from the county seat of Brooke County, and who had represented defendants in the proceeding wherein the injunction decree was entered. The attorney advised defendants that it would be necessary for them to file an answer to the rule, but apparently nothing further was done in preparation for a hearing of the matter at 9:30 the next morning. The defendants, with their attorney Ihlenfeld, appeared at 9:30 on the morning of the twentieth and, after certain preliminary motions were disposed of by the court, the attorney for defendants advised the court as follows:

'If the court please, at this time on behalf of the three named defendants, I would like to move for a continuance of this hearing on these grounds: I understand through the newspapers that there was a hearing here on Monday of this week. I left town for the city of Charleston to be in the Supreme Court of Appeals on Tuesday. I had to leave town before noon on that day and did not return until Wednesday. I understand that the rule which these men are here in response to this morning was not served upon them until late Wednesday afternoon of this week. They appeared in my office immediately before noon on yesterday for the first time. This is a criminal matter and, I believe, deserves the greatest consideration that I, as their attorney, can possibly give it. I respectfully represent to the court at this time I have had absolutely no time to prepare a written answer, which we are entitled to file, and that it has just been within the past ten minutes that I have seen--and I have not even read the petition for attachment, which in this case probably would amount to an indictment of these men. I am not advised as to what action I should take in reference to the indictment, technically, even at this time, let alone consulting with these persons properly and any witness they may have which would permit them to present their case in a proper manner. I think it would be to their prejudice--in fact, I know it would be to their prejudice--to continue with this hearing in any particular at this time. I am not prepared even to cross-examine any witnesses which the complainants may present, because I don't know what the defense will be. I therefore ask the court for a reasonable continuance of at least a week or ten days.'

The motion for the delay of the hearing was opposed by counsel for plaintiffs and the court announced that the defendants would be given until 11:00 A.M. of that day, or a period of forty-five minutes according to a statement of the attorney for defendants, to prepare for trial and file an answer, the court then indicating that the court reporter would be available to defendants for...