State Ex rel. Works v. Langum

• Decision Date: 24 April 1914
• Docket Number: 18,783 - (15)
• Citation: 146 N.W. 1102,125 Minn. 304
• Parties: STATE ex rel. ROBERT M. WORKS v. OTTO S. LANGUM and Another
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

146 N.W. 1102

125 Minn. 304

STATE ex rel. ROBERT M. WORKS v. OTTO S. LANGUM and Another

Nos. 18,783 - (15)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

April 24, 1914

Upon the relation of Robert M. Works, the district court for Hennepin county granted him a writ of habeas corpus, directed to Otto S. Langum, as sheriff, and Nels Clausen, as county jailer, of that county. Return was made that the relator was placed in custody of respondents by virtue of a commitment issued out of the municipal court of Minneapolis, wherein it appeared relator was duly adjudged guilty of contempt of court in declaring in open court in the presence and hearing of the judge presiding therein and the jury attending on said court: "Judge, hereafter when any case of mine is assigned to you, I am going to file an affidavit of prejudice. I never heard such rulings in my life," and sentenced to pay a fine of $50 and in default of payment to be imprisoned in the common jail for the term of five days. The matter was heard by Booth, J., who found that the commitment was in all things fair upon its face and in accordance with law, but that the municipal court had no jurisdiction to impose a penalty exceeding a fine of $20, and in default thereof imprisonment not to exceed two days, and freeing relator from detention, but directing delivery of the prisoner forthwith to the municipal court for further proceedings. From that order, both parties appealed. Affirmed on both appeals.

SYLLABUS

Municipal court -- contempt sentence.

1. The maximum sentence that may be imposed for the offense of a direct contempt of court by the municipal court of the city of Minneapolis is a fine of $20 or two days' imprisonment in the county jail.

Habeas corpus -- excessive sentence -- procedure.

2. In a habeas corpus proceeding where the respondent justifies the detention of the relator upon a commitment showing a valid conviction, but an unauthorized sentence, it is proper, in releasing him from detention under the commitment, to remand him to the proper court for further proceedings.

John F Bernhagen and Victor M. Petersen, for relator.

James Robertson, County Attorney, for respondents.

OPINION

HOLT, J.

The order made by the district court in a habeas corpus proceeding is attacked upon this appeal by each of the two parties concerned. The relator, an attorney engaged in the trial of an action before Hon. C. L. Smith, a judge of the municipal court of the city of Minneapolis, felt impelled by a ruling then made by the court to use language concerning the court's action not appropriate to the occasion on the part of an attorney, even when smarting under defeat. The court promptly called him to account, adjudged him guilty of contempt of court and imposed a sentence of $50, or five days' confinement in county jail in default of payment. The fine was not paid, and when the sheriff, the respondent, apprehended the relator under a commitment duly issued upon the judgment, the latter petitioned the district court for a writ of habeas corpus. Upon the hearing the court was of the opinion that the punishment imposed was beyond the power of the municipal court to inflict, and ordered relator freed from detention under the commitment, but directed respondent to deliver the prisoner forthwith to the municipal court for further proceedings according to law.

On this appeal we are not permitted to consider the merits of the conviction. The commitment, though faulty and technically defective, states sufficient to show that relator was duly adjudged guilty of a direct contempt of court, an offense within the jurisdiction of the municipal court to deal with, and the only question before us relates to the sentence. If that is within the power of the court to impose, the order of the district court should be reversed on the respondent's appeal. If the sentence was excessive, the question will be as to the propriety of remanding relator to the municipal court.

Respondent contends that the municipal court of Minneapolis has full authority to punish for contempt of court under chapter 91 G.S. 1913, at least to the extent of its criminal jurisdiction of $100 fine or a 90-day jail sentence. Relator cites State v. McDonough, 117 Minn. 173, 134 N.W. 509, as conclusive that the sentence imposed upon him was beyond the power of the court to pronounce. This is not strictly so, for in that case counsel conceded that the municipal court there concerned was governed by chapter 229, p. 589, Laws 1895, which expressly provides (section 38) that the laws relating to contempt proceedings...