Yoder v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 13 June 1907
• Citation: 57 S.E. 581,107 Va. 823
• Parties: YODER v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

57 S.E. 581

107 Va. 823

YODER

v.COMMONWEALTH.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

June 13, 1907.

1. Contempt — Power to Punish—Summary Proceedings.

Code 1904, § 3768, provides that the courts and judges may issue attachments for contempts, and punish them summarily in certain cases. Held, that a summary proceeding within the meaning of the act was one in which the party offending was not to be given a trial by jury.

2. Same — Constitutional Law — Regulation op Court's Power to Punish.

Code 1904, § 3768, providing in what cases courts may issue attachments for contempts and punish them summarily, is a reasonable regulation, and does not violate Const. § 63, granting to the General Assembly the right to "regulate the exercise by courts of the right to punish for contempt."

3. Same—Acts Constituting Contempt.

Code 1904, § 3768, subd. 3, provides that the courts and judges may issue attachments for contempt and punish them summarily where obscene, contemptuous, or insulting language is addressed to a judge for or in respect of any act, or proceeding had, or to be had, in such court, or like language used in his presence and intended for his hearing for or in respect of such act or proceeding. Held that, to render one liable for contempt, the language, whether spoken or written, must be specifically addressed to the judge.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 10, Contempt, § 14.]

4. Same — Statutory Provisions — Jury Trial.

Code 1904, § 3771, providing that "no court shall without a jury, for any such contempt as is mentioned in the first class embraced in section 3768, impose a fine exceeding $50 or imprison more than ten days, " does not apply to any contempts enumerated in section 3768, except those embraced in the first subdivision, relating to misbehavior in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as to obstruct or interrupt the administration of justice.

Error to Corporation Court of Lynchburg. Adon A. Yoder was adjudged guilty of contempt of court, and brings error. Reversed.

Montague & Montague and A. E. Strode, for plaintiff in error.

The Attorney General and J. T. Coleman, for the Commonwealth.

KEITH, P. A rule was issued by the corporation court of the city of Lynchburg at its October term, 1906, against Adon A. Yoder, to show cause why he should not be fined for his alleged contempt of court, "in that he did on the ——day of August, on the —— day of September, and on the——day of October, 1906, within the city of Lynchburg, write, publish, and circulate in a certain publication entitled 'The Idea' certain articles of and concerning the Honorable Frank P. Christian, judge of the corporation court of the said city." The rule referred to in the foregoing order is in the words and figures following, to wit:

"We command you that you summon Adon A. Yoder to appear before the judge of our corporation court for the city of Lynchburg at the courthouse thereof on Friday, the 26th day of October, 1906, at 10 o'clock a. m., to show cause, if any he can, why he should not be attached and fined for his contempt of said court in that he did on the ——day of August, 1906, within the said city, write, publish, and circulate in a certain publication entitled "The Idea' the following language of and concerning the Honorable Frank P. Christian, judge of the corporation court aforesaid:

" 'Perhaps the most traveled spot in Lynchburg is the intersection of Twelfth and Main streets, and yet the four corners at this intersection are occupied by barrooms. Now, if there be anybody that think that this is "suitable and appropriate, " let him stand on bis head, for I just want to see what he looks like; yet Judge Christian, who grants these licenses, must according to law be "fully satisfied that the place is a suitable and appropriate" one. Now, I think that the time has come that we were having a judge who has a sufficient appreciation of the value to the community of the morality of its young men and of the virtue and sense of decency of its young women to keep such a vile thing as a barroom, certainly, at least, off from the most public spot in the main business street of the town. But Judge Christian has been a judge so long that he has got sot in his ways. He always was a judge of good liquor and now as a judge of the corporation court he has to carry his past sense of "appropriateness" with him.'

"And, also, on the——day of September, the following language:

" 'So many kicks have come to our notice in the last few weeks that we hardly know where to begin. Many of them will have to be passed over for the present until we are able to get a few figures to help substantiate the facts. You see, at present, the editor is advertising agent, reporter, editor, superintendent of printing and business manager, and even on occasion newsboy as well. So if we do not let them have it hot enough for you just be patient, for a kick can be made much more effective by getting all data possible before writing.

" 'For instance, in the August number, we had something to say about Judge Christian's granting license to certain barrooms on the corner of Twelfth and Main. We have since found out some reasons why the long-faced judge cannot afford to make that spot fit for ladies or gentlemen to pass. The judge is interested in the ownership of one of those rough and tough places, and therefore he couldn't refuse to license one without hurting himself. See the point? Besides this, there is another barroom in town, the rents of which help to fill his coffers. And yet such a man is judge of the corporation court of Lynchburg!

" I am not making an argument for any man who is so degraded a fool as to make any kind of a serious argument for the existence of the saloons. Your conscience, if you have any, condemns you enough. I want you to know that now is the time to let Christian and his like know that you are disgusted with his actions, which are causing the enormous expenditure of the city's money for police and criminal expenses.'

"And also, on the ——day of October, 1906, the following language:

" 'Read elsewhere in this number what Sam Jones said about Mayor Smith. Also read what he said about Judge Christian, the church steward who rents out two or three barrooms. Judge Christian known how unchristian it is, but you see he can get so much more money from barkeepers than he can from other renters. Yet Judge Christian makes threats every now and then against the barkeepers for keeping disorderly houses, but they know that his threats are not loaded, for he can't afford to refuse licenses to others when he grants them to his own tenants. You understand?

" 'Maybe some day we will tell you how this little man came to be judge.'

"And have then and there this writ"

Yoder appeared in obedience to this rule and filed his answer, from which it appears that he did make the publications as charged in the rule, but he excuses or defends the act upon the ground that it does not constitute a contempt of court, punishable under section 3768 of the Code of 1904, which provides that "the courts and judges may issue attachments for contempt, and punish them summarily, only in the cases following:

"First. Misbehavior in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as to obstruct or interrupt the administration of justice.

"Second. Violence, or threats of violence, to a judge or officer of the court, or to a juror, witness, or party going to, attending, or returning from the court, for or in respect of any act or proceeding had or to be had in such court.

"Third. Obscene, contemptuous, or insulting language addressed to a judge for or in respect of any act, or proceeding had, or to be had, in such court, or like language used in his presence and intended for his hearing for or in respect of such act or proceeding.

"Fourth. Misbehavior of an officer of the court in his official character.

"Fifth. Disobedience or resistance of an officer of the court, juror, witness, or other person to any lawful process, judgment, decree, or order of the said court" In construing this section, we must first ascertain just what the Legislature meant when it said that "the courts and judges may issue attachments for contempt and punish them summarily only in the cases following."

At common law the general rule was that no person could be deprived of his property or his liberty except by the judgment of his peers. To this rule, however, there was an exception, and in cases of contempt the offender could be attached, brought at once before the court, and punished without the intervention of a jury. Other exceptions relating to minor offenses are enumerated by Blackstone (4 Com. 280) which need not here be specifically mentioned.

In 2 Bouvier's Diet., under the head of "Summary Proceeding, " it is said: "In no case can the party be tried summarily unless when such proceedings are authorized by legislative authority, except perhaps in cases of contempts; for the common law is a stranger to such a mode of trial. 4 Bla. Com. 280; 2 Kent. 73."

And in Jones v. Robins (Mass.) 8 Gray 329, it is said that a summary proceeding is a form of trial in which the ancient established course of legal proceedings Is disregarded, especially in the matter of trial by jury, and, in the case of the heavier crimes, presentment by a grand jury. Brown v. Epps, 91 Va. 726, 21 S. E. 119, 27 L. R. A. 276.

Looking, then, to section 3768 and the other sections in pari materia, and especially section 3771, the conclusion cannot be resisted that the Legislature had it in mind that a...