State v. Woodfin
| Decision Date | 31 December 1844 |
| Citation | 27 N.C. 199,42 Am.Dec. 161,5 Ired. 199 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. JOHN W. WOODFIN. |
There can be no revision, either by appeal or certiorari, of the judgment of a court of record for imposing a punishment for a contempt of the court, declared by the record to have been committed in open court.
The power to commit or fine for a contempt is essential to the existence of every court, and must necessarily be exercised in a summary manner.
The punishment for a contempt, and a conviction on an indictment for the same act, when a crime, are diverso intuitu, and will stand together.
The case of the State v. Yancey, 1st Car. Law. Rep. 119, cited and approved.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Yancey County, at the Fall Term, 1844, his Honor Judge BATTLE presiding.
The defendant and another were fined by the County Court of Yancy, for a contempt of the court, “by fighting in the yard of the court-house, before the court-house door, and in the presence of the court.” The defendant appealed to the Superior Court, where it was agreed by the Solicitor for the State, that the case should be presented to the Court, as upon a certiorari. And on the motion of the solicitor to dismiss the case, on the ground that the matter was wholly in the discretion of the County Court, and not subject to the supervision of the Superior Court, the defendant's counsel contended that, although the quantum of punishment for contempt may be a matter entirely in the discretion of the County Court, yet, whether the act of the defendant was a contempt or not might be enquired of by a court of appellate jurisdiction. It was further proposed to be shewn to the court, that the act complained of was not done, either in the presence or hearing of the court below, and that for the said act the defendant had been indicted and punished in the Superior Court.
The court was of opinion with the Solicitor, and ordered the case to be dismissed, from which judgment the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.Attorney General for the State .
No counsel in this Court for the defendant.
The power to commit or fine for contempt is essential to the existence of every court. Business cannot be conducted, unless the court can suppress disturbances, and the only means of doing that is by immediate punishment. A breach of the peace in facie curiæ is a direct disturbance and a palpable contempt of the authority of the court. It is a case...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex Parte Wolters
...Ossulston, 2 Strange, 1107; Cross v. North Carolina, 132 U. S. 131 33 L. Ed. 287; Re Debs, 158 U. S. 564 39 L. Ed. 1092; State v. Woodfin, 27 N. C. 199, 42 Am. Dec. 161; Yates v. Lansing, 9 Johns. [N. Y.] 395, 6 Am. Dec. 290; State v. Williams, 2 Speers [S. C.] 26; Foster v. Com., 8 Watts &......
-
In Re Briggs.
...A brief review of the cases relied upon by the state, I think, will sustain the view I entertain in this case. In State v. Woodfin, 27 N. C. 199, 42 Am. Dec. 161, State v. Mott, 49 N. C. 449, and Ex parte Summers, 27 N. C. 149, the offenses were committed in facie curise; the two former bei......
-
Blue Jeans Corp. v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, AFL-CIO
...ineffectual, as it is designed to suppress an outrage which impedes the business of the court.' Contemptuous conduct involved in State v. Woodfin, 27 N.C. 199, consisted of 'fighting in the yard of the courthouse, before the courthouse door, and in the presence of the court.' With reference......
-
In re Briggs
... ... State v. Geo. Morgan, who was indicted for keeping a gaming ... house, with a second count for playing cards for money, in ... violation of chapter 29, ... review of the cases relied upon by the state, I think, will ... sustain the view I entertain in this case. In State v ... Woodfin, 27 N.C. 199, 42 Am. Dec. 161, State v ... Mott, 49 N.C. 449, and Ex parte Summers, 27 N.C. 149, ... the offenses were committed in facie ... ...