Thomas v. People

Citation14 Colo. 254, 23 P. 326
Case DateFebruary 28, 1890
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

23 P. 326

14 Colo. 254

THOMAS
v.
PEOPLE.

Supreme Court of Colorado

February 28, 1890


Commissioners' decision. Error to district court, Gunnison county.

Thomas Bros. & Weggener, for plaintiff in error.

H. M. Hogg, Dist. Atty., for the People.

PATTISON, C.

The judgment sought to be reviewed in this case was rendered in a proceeding instituted against [14 Colo. 255] plaintiff in error and others for an alleged contempt of court. It appears from the record that prior to July 12, 1886, there were pending in the court below certain actions at law, wherein one Carrie L. Davis was plaintiff, and John H. Bowman, then sheriff of that county, was defendant. Plaintiff in error was one of the attorneys for the defendant in these actions. On the day named he caused a petition, which had theretofore been prepared by him, praying for a change of the place of trial of the actions mentioned, to be presented to the court. The petition was made under section 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, then in force. This section provided for change of the place of trial, whenever a party 'shall fear that he will not receive a fair trial in the court in which the action is pending, on account that the judge is interested or prejudiced,' etc. The petition alleged prejudice of the judge. [23 P. 327]

In compliance with the requirements of the section, as construed by this court, the facts and circumstances upon which the allegation of prejudice were predicated were set forth in detail. Christ v. People, 3 Colo. 394; Hughes v. People, 5 Colo. 436. It is unnecessary to recite these facts and circumstances. When the petition was presented to the court, it was not read by counsel, but was submitted to the judge for his consideration. Immediately after reading the petition, the judge, upon his own motion, caused an order to be entered, appointing a committee, consisting of three members of the bar, 'to inquire into the matters alleged in said petition, with full authority to administer oaths, and send for persons and papers, and to take such action in the premises as they may deem proper.' The committee was not required to take the oath of office. Subsequently the committee presented a report, the concluding paragraph of which was as follows: 'Your [14 Colo. 256] committee would, therefore, conclude from the charges presented in said affidavit, as well as from the evidence adduced before us, that such charges are a serious reflection upon the honor, integrity, and dignity of this court, and that the same were made recklessly, and without sufficient inquiry as to the truth of the allegations therein contained, so far as they affect the judge of this court, and that the party making, as well as the persons causing, said affidavit and petition to be filed, are in contempt of this honorable court.' The report was not verified by the committee, or any one of them. Plaintiff in error was not permitted to participate in the proceedings had before the committee in any manner. When the report was submitted, the court caused the same to be spread upon the minutes of the court, directed the evidence taken to be filed with the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 practice notes
  • Robertson v. State, 6 Div. 643
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • December 16, 1924
    ...and belief. State v. McGahey, 12 N.D. 535, 97 N.W. 865, 1 Ann.Cas. 650; Swart v. Kimball, 43 Mich. 451, 5 N.W. 635; Thomas v. People, 14 Colo. 254, 23 P. 326, 9 L.R.A. 569; Young v. Cannon, 2 Utah, 560; Batchelder v. Moore, 42 Cal. 412; Ludden v. State, 31 Neb. 429, 48 N.W. 61; Herdman v. S......
  • Ex Parte Landry
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • February 28, 1912
    ...affidavit is necessary." Volume 4, Ency. Pl. & Pr. 779; Batchelder v. Moore, 42 Cal. 412; Hughes v. People, 5 Colo. 436; Thomas v. People, 14 Colo. 254, 23 Pac. 326, 9 L. R. A. 569; Wyatt v. People, 17 Colo. 252, 28 Pac. 961; Whitten v. State, 36 Ind. 196; State v. Vincent, 46 Kan. 618, 26 ......
  • Creekmore v. United States, 4591.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • October 17, 1916
    ...57 Am.St.Rep. 568; In re Nickell, 47 Kan. 734, 28 P. 1076, 27 Am.St.Rep. 315; In re McKenna, 47 Kan. 738, 28 P. 1078; Thomas v. People, 14 Colo. 254, 23 P. 326, 9 L.R.A. 569; State v. Nathans, 49 S.C. 199, 27 S.E. 52, 57. None of said cases tend in any manner to sustain the proposition that......
  • People ex rel. Attorney General v. News-Times Pub. Co.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • February 5, 1906
    ...kept clear the distinction between criminal contempts and civil contempts. It may be well here to take up and consider Thomas v. People, 14 Colo. 254, 23 P. 326, 9 L.R.A. 569. There Thomas filed a petition for a change of venue, alleging prejudice on the part of the judge. The court, after ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
18 cases
  • Robertson v. State, 6 Div. 643
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • December 16, 1924
    ...and belief. State v. McGahey, 12 N.D. 535, 97 N.W. 865, 1 Ann.Cas. 650; Swart v. Kimball, 43 Mich. 451, 5 N.W. 635; Thomas v. People, 14 Colo. 254, 23 P. 326, 9 L.R.A. 569; Young v. Cannon, 2 Utah, 560; Batchelder v. Moore, 42 Cal. 412; Ludden v. State, 31 Neb. 429, 48 N.W. 61; Herdman v. S......
  • Ex Parte Landry
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • February 28, 1912
    ...affidavit is necessary." Volume 4, Ency. Pl. & Pr. 779; Batchelder v. Moore, 42 Cal. 412; Hughes v. People, 5 Colo. 436; Thomas v. People, 14 Colo. 254, 23 Pac. 326, 9 L. R. A. 569; Wyatt v. People, 17 Colo. 252, 28 Pac. 961; Whitten v. State, 36 Ind. 196; State v. Vincent, 46 Kan. 618, 26 ......
  • Creekmore v. United States, 4591.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • October 17, 1916
    ...57 Am.St.Rep. 568; In re Nickell, 47 Kan. 734, 28 P. 1076, 27 Am.St.Rep. 315; In re McKenna, 47 Kan. 738, 28 P. 1078; Thomas v. People, 14 Colo. 254, 23 P. 326, 9 L.R.A. 569; State v. Nathans, 49 S.C. 199, 27 S.E. 52, 57. None of said cases tend in any manner to sustain the proposition that......
  • People ex rel. Attorney General v. News-Times Pub. Co.
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • February 5, 1906
    ...kept clear the distinction between criminal contempts and civil contempts. It may be well here to take up and consider Thomas v. People, 14 Colo. 254, 23 P. 326, 9 L.R.A. 569. There Thomas filed a petition for a change of venue, alleging prejudice on the part of the judge. The court, after ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT