Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

shall be confined in jail not more than one year, and fined not exceeding one thousand dollars. (1 R. C. p. 273, ch. 77, § 2. Acts 1847-8, p. 108, § 23.)

§ 20. Every person convicted under either of the two preceding sections, shall moreover forfeit his office, and be forever incapable of holding any post mentioned in the first section of chapter twelve. (Id. § 22, 23.)

§ 21. If a free person steal, or fraudulently secrete or destroy a public record, or part thereof, he shall, if the offence be not embraced by the nineteenth section, be confined in jail not more than one year, and fined not exceeding one thousand dollars. (1 R. C. p. 572, ch. 149. Acts 1838, p. 70, ch. 91.)

Summoning or procuring juror to act partially. Contempts of

court.

§ 22. A sheriff or other officer who, corruptly, or through favor or ill will, shall summon a juror, with intent that such juror shall find a verdict for or against either party, shall be fined not exceeding five hundred dollars, and forfeit his office, and be forever incapable of holding any post mentioned in the first section of chapter twelve." (Acts 1847–8, p. 108, § 25.)

§ 23. If any free person shall procure, or attempt to procure, a juror to be summoned, with intent that such juror shall find a verdict for or against either party, he shall be fined not exceeding five hundred dollars. (Acts 1847–8, 108, § 26.)

p.

§ 24. The courts and the judges, and justices thereof, may issue attachments for contempts,' and punish them summa

See ante, note (2.)

• See ante, note (2.)

'The courts, ex necessitate rei, have the power of protecting the administration of justice, with a promptitude calculated to meet the exigency o the particular case, and to crush the immediate evil. Graham, Baron, in Clement's case, 11 Price 68; also reported in 4 Barn. & Ald. 218, 6 Eng. Com. Law Rep. 408. It is, therefore, incident to every superior court of

[ocr errors]

rily, only in the cases following: (Acts 1830-31, p. 48, ch. 11, § 25; 1847-8, p. 159, ch. 24, § 1.)

8

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

justice to have power to fine and imprison for contempt. The power is inherent per legem terræ, and as much so as any of those powers which the courts exercise by virtue of their jurisdiction in enforcing judgments founded on cases determined by means of a jury. Wood, Baron, in S. C.

In England, the power is exercised not only where there is a physical necessity for the exercise of it, as in the case of immediate contempt in the presence of the court, or the actual disturbance of its proceedings, but also when the conduct of a person is calculated to disturb by its effects the even course of justice. Graham, Baron, in S. C. See on this subject, Gilham's case, 1 Moody & Malkin 165, 22 Eng. Com. Law Rep. 278; and Wigley's case, 7 Car, & Payne 4; 32 Eng Com. Law Rep. 415.

A commitment for a contempt, being a commitment for punishment, must be for a time certain, and not till the offender be discharged by due course of law. The King v. James, 5 Barn. & Ald. 894. A justice of the peace committing for a contempt of himself in his office, cannot commit for punishment, unless by warrant in writing. Mayhew v. Locke, 7 Taunt, 63.

A contempt of court is in the nature of a criminal offence; and the proceeding for its punishment is in the nature of a criminal proceeding. The judgment in such a proceeding can be reviewed, by a superior tribunal only by writ of error, and not always in that way. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. City of Wheeling, 13 Gratt. 40, 57.

8 In the case of The Com. v. Stuart et als., 2 Va. Cas. 320, a rule was made upon the defendants to shew cause why an attachment should not issue against them, for riotous and disorderly conduct committed by them in the presence of a judge of a circuit court, at a tavern, during the recess of the court. The riotous and disorderly conduct was at night, after the court had adjourned for the day. The circuit court adjourned the question whether, in such case, the defendants could be proceeded against by attachment as for a contempt; and the General Court held that the rule ought to be discharged.

Where an attack is made upon a judge, during an interval of adjournment, on account of his judicial proceedings in court, such attack does amount to a contempt of court, for which the party is liable to be fined or imprisoned, or both. Com. v. Dandridge, 2 Va. Cas. 408.

A circuit superior court orders a subpæna for witnesses to attend the grand jury then in session, and they intentionally conceal themselves from the sheriff to prevent the process from being served, and so prevent it from

Secondly, Violence or threats of violence to a judge, justice 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.

Thirdly, Misbehavior of an officer of the court, in his official character.

Fourthly, 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.

§ 25. No court shall, without a jury, for any such contempt as is mentioned in the first class embraced in the preceding section, impose a fine exceeding fifty dollars, or imprison more than ten days. But in any such case the court may empanel a jury (without an indictment, information or any formal pleading) to ascertain the fine or imprisonment proper to be inflicted, and may give judgment according to the verdict. (Acts 1830-31, id.; 1847–8, id. § 2.)

§ 26. No court shall impose a fine for a contempt, unless the defendant be present in court, or shall have been served with a rule of the court to shew cause on some certain day, and shall have failed to appear and shew cause.10 (Id.)

being served, till the grand jury is discharged: Held, upon the construction of the statute of 1830-31, ch. 11, § 25, that this is not a contempt, punishable by the court in a summary manner. Com. v. Deskin and others, Leigh 685.

10 In the case of The People v. Van Wyck, 2 Caines's Rep. 333, the defendant shewed cause by affidavit, and it was insisted that he ought to appear in person. The court said, "We all think it would produce great oppression and unnecessary expense, to compel a party, who may be perfectly innocent, to appear in person on a rule to shew cause. Why bring a man from Ontario to New York, to swear that he was sick and therefore unable to attend on a subpana, when that fact can be as easily communicated by his affidavit properly taken? An attachment might almost as well go in the first instance. We therefore think the defendant's personal attendance was unnecessary.".

An attachment for a contempt in not attending the court as a witness, ought not to issue until a rule has been served upon the party to shew cause why it should not. Morris v. Creel, 1 Va. Cas. 333.

§ 27. If any person, by threats or force, attempt to intimidate or impede a judge, justice, juror, witness," or an officer of a court, in the discharge of his duty, or to obstruct or impede the administration of justice in any court, he shall be prosecuted as for a misdemeanor, and punished by fine and imprisonment, or either, at the discretion of a jury. (Acts 1830-31, p. 48, ch. 11, § 25; 1847-8, p. 159, ch. 24, § 4.)

An attachment for a contempt has no other object than to bring the party into court. If the party, upon being served with a rule to shew cause why an attachment should not issue, appear in court in person, and instead of moving to discharge the rule, submit to answer to interrogatories, and by his answers fail to purge the contempt, there is no necessity to go through the formality of an attachment and a repetition of the interrogatories, but the court may proceed at once to judgment. Dandridge's case,

2 Va, Cas. 426-7.

Both the rule and attachment are dispensed with, when the contempt is committed in the face of the court.

Id.

Using means to prevent, and preventing a witness from attending court, who had been duly summoned, is a contempt of court, which may be punished by information. Com. v. Feely, 2 Va. Cas. 1.

What is sufficient certainty in such information. Id.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Gaming; lotteries and lottery tickets.

§ 1. A free person, who shall keep or exhibit a gaming table, commonly called A B C, or E O table, or faro bank,

« ForrigeFortsett »