State Ex Rel. Workman v. Anderson, (Nos. 4372, 4373.)

• Court: Supreme Court of West Virginia
• Writing for the Court: LIVELY, J
• Citation: 109 S.E. 782
• Parties: STATE ex rel. WORKMAN. v. ANDERSON, Judge (two cases).
• Docket Number: (Nos. 4372, 4373.)
• Decision Date: 13 September 1921

109 S.E. 782

STATE ex rel. WORKMAN.
v.
ANDERSON, Judge (two cases).

(Nos. 4372, 4373.)

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Sept. 13, 1921.

[109 S.E. 782]

Rehearing Denied Dec. 9, 1921.

(Syllabus by the Court.) (Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)

Proceeding by the State, on the relation of D. F. Workman, against John M. Anderson, Judge, for writ of prohibition to prevent the trial of the relator on two indictments for felony. Writ awarded.

C. M. Ward and Hugh A. Dunn, both of Beckley, for relator.

E. T. England, Atty. Gen., R. Dennis Steed, Asst. Atty. Gen., D. D. Ashworth, Pros. Atty., and J. W. Maxwell, both of Beckley, and Osenton & Lee, of Fayetteville, for respondent.

LIVELY, J. At the March term, 1921, of the criminal court of Raleigh county, two indictments were returned against D. F. Workman, each for a felony, charging him with accepting certain bribes as commissioner of the county court of that county in the performance of his official duty. The first felony indictment charged him with accepting and receiving from one C. L. Lilly the sum of $2,500, paid or given to said Workman by said Lilly upon an agreement between them that Workman, then a commissioner of the county court, would vote for the purchase of a tract of land of 79 acres which Lilly was offering to sell to the county court for county purposes. This indictment charged that Workman received this bribe on the 12th day of March, 1919. The second felony indictment was for unlawfully, feloniously, and corruptly demanding and receiving from one J. L. Richmond in said county on the 23d day of February, 1921, a sum of $600 in money, upon the understanding and agreement with said Richmond that he (Workman), as a member of the county court, would vote to sell to said Richmond, for the sum of $1,600, a certain steam shovel, which then belonged to the county court and which it proposed to sell. Workman appeared in court to answer these two indictments, and was placed under bond for his appearance at the trial, which was set for the 24th day of June, 1921, and the judge of the criminal court, Hon. John M. Anderson, then announced in open court that he expected to try Workman on the charges of felony in said indictments on that date.

Conceiving that the facts and allegations charged in these indictments did not constitute a felony under the statute, Workman petitioned for and obtained rules in prohibition against the judge of the criminal court to show cause why he should not be prohibited from proceeding to try the petitioner upon the indictments for felony. To the rule in prohibition the judge appeared by counsel, demurred to the petition filed, and moved to quash the rule issued thereon because the facts alleged in the petition were not sufficient to warrant the writ as prayed for, and for answer says that as judge of the criminal court he has jurisdiction to try and determine the matters alleged in the Indictments.

If the facts charged in these indictments do not constitute felony under the law, then the criminal court has no right or jurisdiction to try Workman for a felony, and, as we understand it, the petitioner seeks only to prohibit the trial of the felony charge. At common law all forms of bribery, except bribery of a judge in relation to a cause pending before him, where misdemeanors to be visited with imprisonment and fine. Bishop's New Criminal Law, vol, 2, § 87. In Virginia, at the time of the formation of this state, it was a misdemeanor for any executive, legislative, or judicial officer to corruptly accept a bribe, punished by being confined in jail for one year, and by being fined not exceeding $1,000, forfeiture of his office, and also being forever incapable of holding any office of honor, trust, or profit uuder that state. This provision is found in the Code of Virginia of 1860, in chapter 194, and was adopted by this state, and is now section 5 of chapter 147, of the Code of 1918 (Code 1913, § 5248). This statute of Virginia, adopted by this state at its formation, continued as the law for punishing the crime of bribery by any executive, legislative, or judicial offic-

[109 S.E. 783]

er until after the adoption of the Constitution of 1872. By...