State v. Leftwich

• Decision Date: 10 June 1889
• Citation: 41 Minn. 42
• Parties: STATE OF MINNESOTA <I>vs.</I> THOMAS J. LEFTWICH.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

41 Minn. 42

STATE OF MINNESOTA vs. THOMAS J. LEFTWICH.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 10, 1889.

Certiorari, to review an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Hicks, J., presiding, punishing the relator for contempt.

Thomas J. Leftwich, relator, pro se.

Brooks & Hendrix, for the State.

GILFILLAN, C. J.

This is a certiorari, to bring here for review the proceedings of the district court in Hennepin county in imposing on the relator, Leftwich, a fine for contempt of court. The record certified here shows that there was on trial in the district court an action in which the relator was attorney for the plaintiff, and at the time he was examining a witness on behalf of the plaintiff. He had asked the witness several questions, all of the same general character, each being in substance but a repetition of those preceding it. The court, on the questions being objected to as each was asked, decided them improper, and sustained the objections. The relator, however, persisted in making offers substantially similar to those made by the questions which had been overruled, and which the court probably construed to be made with intent to evade its rulings, or with some other than a bona fide purpose to fairly present the cause of his client. The court warned him that if he continued in that course it would consider it a contempt of court. He did continue it, and the court thereupon called on him to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt, and, as he showed none, the court adjudged him guilty of contempt, and directed to be entered against him a fine of $10.

There can be little, if any, question that an order adjudging a person guilty of contempt, and imposing a penalty upon him, may be brought here for review. The authorities which hold that at the common law the authority of every court to punish for contempts committed in its presence is final and uncontrollable, cannot apply here, where, by the constitution, the appellate jurisdiction of this court extends to all cases at law and in equity. In County of Brown v. Winona & St. Peter Land Co., 38 Minn. 397, (37 N. W. Rep. 949,) we held this constitutional provision to mean that in all judicial proceedings the judgment which finally determines the rights of parties is subject to review by this court. But objection is made that appeal, and not certiorari, is the proper mode of bringing such a matter here for review. This, we think, depends on the nature and purpose of the adjudication for contempt. In Re Fanning, 40 Minn. 4, (41 N. W. Rep. 1076,) we held that an order committing for contempt may have a double aspect — First, in the nature of a remedy to a party to enforce his rights; second, punitive merely, in punishment of the offence of contempt; in the first for the private benefit of the party, in the second only to assert and vindicate the authority of the court, and that under that aspect its purpose is public. When of the former character it is a proceeding in the action between the parties when of the latter, it is collateral to it, and the parties, as such, have no interest in it; when of the former character the provisions of statute regulating appeals in civil actions may apply; when of the latter, they cannot. Upon whom,...