State v. Davis Et At
| Court | Supreme Court of West Virginia |
| Writing for the Court | DENT |
| Citation | 50 W.Va. 100,40 S.E. 331 |
| Parties | STATE v. DAVIS et at. |
| Decision Date | 16 November 1901 |
40 S.E. 331
50 W.Va. 100
STATE
v.
DAVIS et at.
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
Nov. 16, 1901.
CONTEMPT—DISOBEDIENCE OF INJUNCTION.
On trial of persons charged with contempt in disobeying an injunction, the evidence must be sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reason able doubt; otherwise the rule should be discharged. (Syllabus by the Court.)
Error to circuit court, Pleasants county; L. N. Tavenner, Judge.
Miles Davis and others were found guilty of contempt, and bring error. Reversed.
Howard & Handlan, for plaintiff in error.
Freer, Atty. Gen., and Alex Dulin, for the State.
DENT, J. Miles Davis, J. J. Mahoney, and Harry Cheeny complain of the judgment of the circuit court of Pleasants county, rendered on the 21st day of December, 1899, adjudging them guilty of contempt of such court in violating an injunction thereof prohibiting them from selling intoxicating liquors at a certain house in St. Marys, and sentencing them to six months' imprisonment therefor. The defendants insist that the evidence is wholly insufficient to justify the finding of the court. A careful examination of the evidence, which is too voluminous to set out at length, fully sustains their contention. It proves sales made before, but none made by them or for which they were responsible after, the injunction was served. There are some suspicious circumstances, sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to their entire innocence, but wholly insufficient to overcome the presumption in their favor, and establish their guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. It is shown that some persons unknown did make sales of intoxicants after the service of the injunction at the inhibited place, but the evidence wholly fails to connect such persons in any manner with these defendants. It is also shown that J. J. Mahoney confessed before the mayor of St. Marys, on the 21st day of November, 1899, the day after the injunction was served on him, to 10 illegal sales, and was fined therefor, but this, undoubtedly, according to the testimony of the mayor, was for sales made prior to that date, and before service of the injunction. The circuit court evidently failed to give the defendants the benefit of the legal presumptions in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hendershot v. Hendershot, No. 14457
...17 Am.Jur.2d, Contempt, Section 78, page 72; State ex rel. Alderson v. Cunningham, 33 W.Va. 607, pt. 1, syl., 11 S.E. 76; State v. Davis, 50 W.Va. 100, 40 S.E. 331; State ex rel. Continental Coal Co. v. Bittner, 102 W.Va. 677, pt. 2 syl., 136 S.E. 202, 49 A.L.R. 968; State ex rel. Taylor v.......
-
P.G. & H. Coal Co., Inc. v. International Union, United Mine Workers of America, No. 17516
...State ex rel. Taylor v. Devore, 134 W.Va. 151, 58 S.E.2d 641 (1950); Mylius v. McDonald, 61 W.Va. 405, 56 S.E. 602 (1907); State v. Davis, 50 W.Va. 100, 40 S.E. 331 (1901); Syllabus Point 1, State ex rel. Alderson v. Cunningham, 33 W.Va. 607, 11 S.E. 76 8 The contempt adjudication of one un......
-
State ex rel. Hoosier Engineering Co. v. Thornton, No. 10431
...must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.' See State ex rel. West Virginia-Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. Eno, W.Va., 63 S.E.2d 845; State v. Davis, 50 W.Va. 100, 40 S.E. 331; State v. Ralphsnyder, 34 W.Va. 352, 12 S.E. 721; also, defendant was entitled to the benefit of a presumption of innocence, a......
-
Hendershot v. Handlan, No. 14110
...Contempt, Section 78, page 72; State ex rel. Alderson v. Cunningham, 33 W.Va. 607, pt. 1 syl., 11 [162 W.Va. 186] S.E. 76; State v. Davis, 50 W.Va. 100, 40 S.E. 331; State ex rel. Continental Coal Co. v. Bittner, 102 W.Va. 677, pt. 2 syl., 136 S.E. 202, 49 A.L.R. 968; State ex rel. Taylor v......
-
United States v. United Mine Workers of America Same v. Lewis, John United Mine Workers of America v. United States Lewis, John v. Same United Mine Workers of America v. Same, s. 759
...against himself. Bond v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746; United States v. Jose, C.C., 63 F. 951; State v. Davis, 50 W.Va. 100, 40 S.E. 331; King v. Ohio & M. Ry. Co., Fed.Cas.No. 7,800, 7 Biss. 529; Sabin v. Fogarty, C.C., 70 F. 482; Drakeford v. Adams, 98 Ga. (722),......
-
Ex Parte Wolters
...himself. Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 6 Sup. Ct. 524, 29 L. Ed. 746; United States v. Jose (C. C.) 63 Fed. 951; State v. Davis, 50 W. Va. 100, 40 S. E. 331; King v. Ohio & M. R. Co., 7 Biss. 529, Fed. Cas. No. 7,800; Sabin v Fogarty (C. C.) 70 Fed. 482; Drakeford v. Adams, 98 Ga. 7......
-
State ex rel. Hoosier Engineering Co. v. Thornton, 10431
...must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.' See State ex rel. West Virginia-Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. Eno, W.Va., 63 S.E.2d 845; State v. Davis, 50 W.Va. 100, 40 S.E. 331; State v. Ralphsnyder, 34 W.Va. 352, 12 S.E. 721; also, defendant was entitled to the benefit of a presumption of innocence, a......
-
P.G. & H. Coal Co., Inc. v. International Union, United Mine Workers of America, 17516
...State ex rel. Taylor v. Devore, 134 W.Va. 151, 58 S.E.2d 641 (1950); Mylius v. McDonald, 61 W.Va. 405, 56 S.E. 602 (1907); State v. Davis, 50 W.Va. 100, 40 S.E. 331 (1901); Syllabus Point 1, State ex rel. Alderson v. Cunningham, 33 W.Va. 607, 11 S.E. 76 8 The contempt adjudication of one un......