Wells v. Dist. Court of Polk Cnty.
| Decision Date | 12 January 1905 |
| Citation | 126 Iowa 340,102 N.W. 106 |
| Parties | WELLS v. DISTRICT COURT OF POLK COUNTY ET AL. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Certiorari proceedings originally brought in this court to review the action of the district court of Polk county, Hon. Josiah Given, Judge, in respect of certain contempt proceedings had in that court, and wherein this plaintiff was adjudged to be guilty of a contempt of court, and by the judgment ordered to pay a fine and costs. The opinion states the case. Annulled.Connor & Weaver and Bremner & Shular, for plaintiff.
W. H. Baily and others, for defendants.
The return to the writ issued out of this court makes it appear that in October, 1903, an information was filed in the district court of Polk county charging this plaintiff with a contempt of court, for that, being a party defendant in a certain cause pending in said court he had knowingly attempted to improperly influence the conduct of one John Fletcher, a juror in regular attendance upon said court, and afterwards drawn and sworn as one of the jury for the trial of said cause, by causing and procuring one F. A. Marvin to converse with said juror about said cause, the merits thereof, and the verdict to be rendered therein, and to solicit said juror to favor the defendant therein in respect of the verdict to be rendered. Upon the filing of such information a rule issued, and in response thereto this plaintiff appeared, and made answer in writing, and under oath, in which he denied all and singular the allegations in the information contained. A motion for discharge, based upon the denials contained in the answer, having been overruled, a trial was had on oral testimony produced in open court, resulting in a finding of guilty and the entry of judgment for a fine and costs.
Various questions of law are raised by the petition, and are discussed in argument by the respective counsel. In the view we take of the case, but one of such questions is material to be noticed, and this we shall do presently. One of the allegations of the petition for the writ is “that the said court and judge erred in the trial of the said proceedings in finding this plaintiff guilty, for the reason that there was no evidence whatever that this plaintiff ever authorized or had any knowledge of what was claimed to have been done by the said Marvin in attempting to improperly influence said juror Fletcher.” Counsel for defendants insist that the intrinsic correctness of a contempt judgment, as that the same had no warrant in the evidence, cannot be reviewed by proceedings of certiorari, it appearing that the trial court had jurisdiction, and that its proceedings were conducted in due form. We may concede that such is the rule where the subject is not governed by provisions of statute. Under our statute, however, the writ of certiorari may issue, not only for the correction of errors committed as in excess of jurisdiction, or to set aside the illegal acts of an inferior tribunal, but in all cases when authorized by law. Code, § 4154. And by Code, § 4468, it is provided that “no appeal lies from an order to punish for contempt, but the proceedings may, in proper cases, be taken to a higher court for revision by certiorari.” That by revision it was intended that the court sitting in review should pass upon the fact question involved, so far, at least, as to determine whether the act shown to have been committed was or was not sufficient in law to constitute a contempt, is made clear, as we think, by the reading of Code, § 4466. There it is provided that all the evidence upon which the action of the court is founded must be in writing, and made a part of the record. Such would be an idle proceeding if the judgment of the court as to the legal effect or sufficiency of the evidence to make out a case of contempt could in no instance become the subject of review. Without further...
To continue reading
Request your trial