White v. State
| Decision Date | 16 March 1962 |
| Docket Number | 2,Nos. 1,No. 39142,3,39142,s. 1 |
| Citation | 105 Ga.App. 616,125 S.E.2d 239 |
| Parties | Houston WHITE v. STATE of Georgia, etc |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in holding that the defendant had committed a direct contempt in the presence of the court, and such adjudication was not erroneous for any reasons assigned.
Houston White, an attorney, was adjudged in contempt of court by Judge Luther Alverson of the Fulton Superior Court, in an order dated May 5, 1960. This action arose out of a child custody hearing in Fulton Superior Court. The Supreme Court of Georgia later ruled that, since Fulton Superior Court had voluntarily relinquished jurisdiction in this particular case to the Fulton Juvenile Court, it was thereafter without jurisdiction in the matter. Slater v. Slater, 216 Ga. 242, 115 S.E. 2d 353.
The order of May 5, 1960, adjudging Mr. White in contempt reads as follows:
'MRS. NORMA JANE DODD SLATER
v.
'ROBERT LEE SLATER, III, ROBERT L. SLATER, JR., AND MRS.
ROBERT L. SLATER, JR.
FULTON SUPERIOR COURT
'RULE FOR CONTEMPT
In the case of Mrs. Norma Jane Dodd Slater versus Robert Lee Slater, III, Case Number A-65888, Fulton Superior Court, having been heard from time to time since March 29, 1960, unto April 15, 1960, and again continued, it having been postponed on three or four occasions because of the illness of counsel for defendant, Mr. Houston White, who appeared through this case on behalf of defendant, made highly disrespectful and contemptuous remarks unto said Court in a discourteous manner, impugning the integrity of this Court, reflecting upon its dignity, and impeding the orderly administration of justice, whereupon this Court gave said attorney ample opportunity, on three occasions, to apologize to this Court for his contamcious [sic] attitude, conduct, and language, and said attorney refused to do so, whereupon this Court found him in contempt, fining him $200.00 or ten days in jail, said sentence to be executed upon said attorney's recuperation from his illness and resumption of this case.
'While this Court shows that the general demeanor and attitude of said Mr. Houston White tinged on the improper throughout the trial, the acts specified as contemptuous are as shown by the following:
'THEREFORE, it is hereby now ordered, in open Court, upon the resumption of the above case, Mr. Houston White being present, that Mr. Houston White pay the sum of Two Hundred Dollars in cash to the Honorable Ralph Grimes, the Sheriff of Fulton County, or his lawful deputy, as a fine for the aforesaid contemptuous conduct, and in the event Mr. Houston White fails to pay this sum, the Honorable Ralph Grimes is hereby directed to incarcerate the said Mr. Houston White in the common jail of this County instanter, there to remain for a period of ten days from this date.
'AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
'This the 5th day of May, 1960.
'Luther Alverson
'LUTHER ALVERSON
'JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT
'ATLANTA JUDICIAL CIRCUIT'
Mr. White, on June 6, 1960, filed several motions in the nature of general and special demurrers to strike the rule for contempt. On June 13, 1960, the Court passed an order changing the caption of the rule for contempt to 'The State of Georgia v. Houston White' from the styling as shown on the original order of contempt and ordering said caption, and the order, to be entered on the docket nunc pro tunc. Also on June 13, 1960, the Court passed an order which recited that no appeal from the order of May 5, 1960 had been filed and that the time for exception to same had expired, ordering the Sheriff of Fulton County to incarcerate the said Houston White in jail for 10 days, or until such time that he pays the fine in the amount of $200.
The sheriff executed this order and White was placed in jail where he was held until approximately 4:30 p. m. on June 13, 1960. He was released at that time when a judge of this court granted a supersedeas in the matter. Thereafter, White filed a motion for a jury trial and other motions and exceptions to the order of June 13, 1960, and renewed all previous motions made in said case.
A hearing was held by Judge Alverson on June 30 and July 1, at which time the Court amended its order of June 13, relating to changing the title of the case. No further ruling was made on the various pleadings and motions filed by White, and on August 3, 1960, the Court passed the following order:
'STATE OF GEORGIA
V.
'HOUSTON WHITE
FULTON SUPERIOR COURT
'ORDER
'The within and foregoing case having come on regularly for hearing on Defendant's various pleas, and during the course of said argument it developed that counsel was of the opinion that he had apologized immediately thereafter for the statements made which formed the bases of this contempt matter, and read from the transcript the portions which he contended to be an apology, and further counsel stated that if the Court deemed his conduct contumacious, he in fact apologized, and further focused this Court's attention on his illness on the day in question, and under these and other circumstances in this case, it appears that the raisin d'etre for this contempt citation--the preservation of the dignity, respect and authority of this Court--has been resolved;
'IT IS HEREBY CONSIDERED, ORDERED, AND ADJUDGED that the contempt order passed by this Court against Houston White on May 5, 1960 be, and it is hereby vacated and set aside.
'AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
'This the 3rd day of August, 1960.
'/s/ Luther Alverson
'LUTHER ALVERSON
'JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT
'ATLANTA...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Hatfield
...in conduct found to be contemptuous and conduct itself did not constitute a sufficient predicate for contempt); White v. State, 105 Ga. App. 616, 625(4), 125 S.E.2d 239 (1962) (attorneys must be free to vigorously represent their clients), rev'd on other grounds, 218 Ga. 290, 127 S.E.2d 668......
-
Tandy Corp. v. McCrimmon
...claim for attorney fees, may defeat the old adage that "he who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client." White v. State, 105 Ga.App. 616, 627, 125 S.E.2d 239 (1962). Nevertheless, I concur fully with Presiding Judge Banke's partial concurrence and BANKE, Presiding Judge, concurring i......
-
Norris, In re, 58326
...similar to those in this case. See also such cases as Brown v. White, 122 Ga.App. 771, 772(1), 178 S.E.2d 757; White v. State of Ga., 105 Ga.App. 616, 125 S.E.2d 239; Alred v. Celanese Corp. of America, 205 Ga. 371, 391, 54 S.E.2d 240; City of Atlanta v. International Assn. of Firefighters,......
-
Martin v. Waters, 58130
...a necessary party defendant. This was the general rule under the former appellate practice. However, it was held in White v. State, 105 Ga.App. 616, 125 S.E.2d 239 (1962) that the defect, being merely technical, could be cured in the trial court by an order nunc pro tunc and the case, so am......