State Ex Rel. Williams v. Coleman

• Decision Date: 04 April 1938
• Citation: 180 So. 360,131 Fla. 872
• Parties: STATE ex rel. WILLIAMS v. COLEMAN, Sheriff.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

180 So. 360

131 Fla. 872

STATE ex rel. WILLIAMS v. COLEMAN, Sheriff.

Florida Supreme Court

April 4, 1938

En Banc.

Original proceeding in habeas corpus by the State, on the relation of Robert R. Williams, against D. C. Coleman, as sheriff of Dade county, Fla.

Petitioner remanded.

COUNSEL

Hendricks & Hendricks, of Miami, and Davis & Davis of Madison, for petitioner.

Cary D Landis, Atty. Gen., and Tyrus A. Norwood, Asst. Atty. Gen for respondent.

R. R. Rhudy and Casey, Walton & Spain, all of Miami, as amici suriae.

It has been made to appear in this court by petition that Robert R. Williams, John W. DuBose, and Ralph B. Ferguson were each being unlawfully detained and deprived of their liberty by D. C. Coleman, as sheriff of Dade county, Fla. When the petition was presented here, a writ of habeas corpus issued on February 4, 1938, directed to and was served on the sheriff of Dade county, Fla., directing that he produce the bodies of the petitioners in this court, together with the cause or reason for their detention. On February 10, 1938, the sheriff of Dade county, Fla., in response to the said writ filed a return in this court and made it known thereby that each of the petitioners were being held on a capias issued by the clerk of the circuit court of Dade county, Fla., predicated on an indictment presented by a grand jury of Dade county, Fla., charging each of the petitioners with the crime of extortion as prohibited by sections 7486 and 7487, C.G.L., viz.:

'7486. (5351). Unlawful for officers to accept unauthorized compensation for performance or non-performance of duty.--It shall be unlawful for any officer, State, county or municipal, or any public appointee, or any deputy of any such officer or appointee, to exact or accept any reward, compensation, or other remuneration other than those provided by law, from any person whatsoever for the performance, non-performance or violation of any law, rule or regulation that may be incumbent upon the said officer or appointee to administer, respect, perform, execute or to have executed: Provided, that nothing herein shall be construed so as to preclude a sheriff or his deputies, city marshal or policemen from accepting rewards or remuneration for services performed in apprehending any criminal.' '7487. (5352.) Penalty for violation of preceding section.--Whoever violates the preceding section without reasonable ground for believing that the reward, compensation or remuneration exacted or accepted was authorized by law, shall be punished by imprisonment in the State prison not exceeding ten years or by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment.'

The material portions of the indictment filed against the petitioners are, viz.:

'That heretofore, to-wit: on the 16th day of August, A. D. 1937, in the County of Dade and State of Florida, the Florida Power & Light Company, was and still is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida and engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling electricity to inhabitants of the City of Miami, Florida, and on said 16th day of August, A. D. 1937, there was and had been for a long time previous thereto, a dispute, disagreement and difference between the said Florida Power & Light Company and the City of Miami, a municipal corporation, as to certain alleged debts, claims and demands of the said City of Miami against the said Florida Power & Light Company, and as to alleged claims, debts and demands of the said Florida Power & Light Company against the said City of Miami; that on said 16th day of August, A. D. 1937 in order to attempt to bring about a settlement of said disputes, disagreements and differences between the said City of Miami and the said Florida Power & Light Company, the City Commission of the said City of Miami, duly authorized the Mayor of the said City of Miami to appoint a committee to act for and represent the said City in carrying on negotiations with the said Florida Power & Light Company, and thereafter to make a report and recommendations to the said City Commission thereon; that on said 16th day of August, A. D. 1937, and at all times thereafter up to the date of the filing of this indictment, one Robert R. Williams was a duly elected and acting City Commissioner of the said City of Miami, and the Mayor of said City of Miami, and one John W. DuBose and one Ralph B. Ferguson were each also duly elected and acting City Commissioner of said City, and on the 18th day of August, A. D. 1937, and at all times thereafter until the 22nd day of December, A. D. 1937, one Thomas E. Grady and the said John W. DuBose were mumbers of the committee aforesaid, being thereto duly appointed by the Mayor of said City as authorized by said City Commission as aforesaid; that on, to-wit: the 16th day of December A. D. 1937, the said Thomas E. Grady, Robert R. Williams, John W. DuBose and Ralph B. Ferguson, conspiring and confederating together to demand, exact and accept from the said Florida Power & Light Company a reward, compensation and remuneration not authorized by law for the performance, non-performance and violation of their respective duties in the premises as officers and appointees of said City, as aforesaid, did, on the said 16th day of December, A. D. 1937, in the County of Dade and State of Florida, unlawfully and corruptly demand and exact of and from one Bryan Hanks, the President of the said Florida Power & Light Company, the sum of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00) as a gift, gratuity, remuneration and reward, to them, the said Thomas E. Grady, Robert R. Williams, John W. DuBose and Ralph B. Ferguson, not authorized by law, for and in consideration of the bringing about and effecting of a compromise, adjustment and settlement of said disputes, disagreements and differences between the said City of Miami and the said Florida Power & Light Company, on terms satisfactory to and as offered and suggested by the said Florida Power & Light Company, and without any reasonable grounds for believing that the said reward, compensation and remuneration so demanded and exacted was authorized by law.'

The pertinent allegations of the indictment are, viz.:

'1. There was and had been a dispute, disagreement and difference between the company and the city, as to 'certain alleged' debts, claims and demands of the city against the company, and as to 'alleged' claims, debts and demands of the company against the city.

'2. In order to attempt to bring about a settlement of such disputes, disagreements and differences, the city commission authorized the Mayor to appoint a committee to act for and represent the city in carrying on negotiations with the company, and thereafter to make a report and recommendations thereon to city commission.

'3. Grady, Williams, DuBose and Ferbuson, conspiring and confederating together to take, exact and accept from the company, a reward, compensation and remuneration, not authorized by law, for the performance, non-performance and violation 'of their respective duties in the premises' as officers and appointees of the city:

'4. And without any reasonable ground for believing that the said reward, compensation and remuneration so demanded and exacted was authorized by law.

'5. Grady, Williams, DuBose and Ferguson, officers and appointees of the city, did unlawfully exact a reward, compensation and remuneration other than provided by law for the performance, non-performance and violation of the law, rules and regulations incumbent upon them as such officers and appointees, to administer, respect, perform, execute and have executed, contrary to the forms of the statutes in such cases made and provided.'

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

In habeas corpus proceedings the strongest intendments are indulged against the petitioner.

The indictment charges that the accused 'did * * * unlawfully and corruptly demand and exact,' etc.

The word 'exact' as used in the statute is not synonymous with the word 'demand.' See Callaway v State, 112 Fla. 599, 152 So. 429, 430, where Mr. Justice Ellis said:

'The gravamen of the felony consists in either exacting or accepting a reward or compensation other than that which is provided by law for the performance or non-performance or violation of a law or rule which is incumbent upon the officer to obey when he has no reasonable ground for believing that the reward or compensation exacted or accepted is authorized by law.

'Both offenses are defined in the Compiled General Laws of Florida under the article entitled 'Bribery.' The statutes define in each case the common law offense of bribery, but the offense is confined to the officer who accepts or exacts the reward and does not include the person offering or paying the reward for the performance of the duty or the omission of it. The sections denouncing the offense as a felony, however, introduce the element of extortion which differentiates it from the offense of bribery and makes it more odious. The offense consists in the oppressive misuse of the exceptional power with which the law invests the incumbent of an office, is the language of Mr. Justice Reed in Kirby v. State, 57 N.J.L. 320, 31 A. 213.'

Afterwards on rehearing this opinion was adopted.

For the purpose of this disposition, we may disregard the word 'demand' as used in the indictment.

As we construe the language of the statute, section 5351, R.G.S section 7486, C. G. L., under which the indictment in this case is drawn, it applies only in cases where reward, compensation, or other remuneration other than those provided by law is received by the official charged with the violation thereof, or is made a condition precedent to the performance or...