State v. Superior Court in and for King County

• Decision Date: 31 January 1914
• Parties: STATE ex rel. RUSSELL et al. v. SUPERIOR COURT IN AND FOR KING COUNTY et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

138 P. 291

77 Wash. 631

STATE ex rel. RUSSELL et al. v. SUPERIOR COURT IN AND FOR KING COUNTY et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 31, 1914

Department 2. Mandamus by the State, on relation of Thomas W. Russell and another, against the Superior Court in and for King County and John E. Humphries, Judge. Peremptory writ granted.

Geo. H Rummens, of Seattle, for plaintiffs.

H. E Foster, of Seattle, for respondents.

CROW C.J.

The relators ask of this court a writ of mandamus directed to Honorable John E. Humphries, judge of the superior court of King county, requiring him to transfer a certain cause to another judge for trial, to call in some other superior court judge to try the cause, or to request the Governor to do so. Relators' application shows the following proceedings: On September 24, 1913, H. E. Foster as deputy prosecuting attorney, in and for King county, presented to respondent an affidavit charging the relators, Thomas W. Russell and Emil Hendrickson, with a contempt of court committed out of the presence of the court, the substance of the charge being that, on September 22, 1913, a certain action was pending in the superior court of King county in which the state of Washington was plaintiff and Millard Price and others were defendants; that prior to September 22, 1913, the relators unlawfully and wrongfully conspired with numerous other persons to interfere with the proceedings of the superior court in said cause; that they did so for the purpose of intimidating the respondent judge before whom the cause was then pending, and that with such intention they adopted certain written resolutions of contemptuous character. A specific statement of the resolutions is unnecessary. Upon the filing of this affidavit, a citation was issued requiring the relators to appear before the superior court, and Hon. John E. Humphries, judge thereof, to answer the charge of contempt. Before further proceedings were had, the relators seasonably filed a motion in strict compliance with chapter 121, Session Laws 1911, requesting a change of judges, and supported their motion with an affidavit, which, in the language of the statute, recited that Hon. John E. Humphries, before whom the proceeding was then pending, was prejudiced against each of them, and against their interest in the cause. Their affidavit, in substance, further alleged that the respondent John E. Humphries, from the bench, and in open court, on several occasions, had expressed his feelings openly and publicly relative to the relators; that he had stated they were guilty of contempt, and that he intended to adjudge them guilty, and sentence them to jail. Respondent denied the motion, struck the affidavits, and ordered the relators to appear before him for trial on October 3, 1913. Thereupon, they applied to this court for an alternative writ of mandamus and a show cause order, which was issued. Respondent has interposed a motion to quash on the ground that the alternative writ was irregularly and improperly issued. It will be unnecessary to pass upon this motion, as the cause is now before us for hearing upon the merits, and the vital question at this time is whether a peremptory writ shall issue.

Relators are charged with a constructive contempt predicated on alleged acts done out of the presence of the court, which acts tended to belittle and degrade the court, and were intended to interrupt, prevent, and embarrass the administration of justice. Respondent contends that chapter 121, Laws of 1911, supra, does not apply to prosecutions for contempt, as the superior court has inherent power to summarily hear and determine such causes, and punish all parties who may be in contempt; that the judiciary is a co-ordinate branch of the government; that its inherent right to punish parties guilty of contempt cannot be destroyed, and that the...