Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1872-06-30

the criminal court OF IN1S county.
i A commitment under such circum
stances is commitment in execution
and the judgment of conviction is no
subject to review in any other court, un
less specially authorized by statute. |
cannot be attacked under the writ Q
hd6edS corpus except for such gross de
fects as render the proceedings void
Hurd on hGbeds corpus, page Az, ant
numerous authorities there cited.
1t is not the province of writ Of hn
6e0S corpus to review errors in anothe
tribunal, or the sufficiency of the evi
dence before it. 1t is only to ascertain
| whether there was Jurisdiction to pro
nounce the sentence and whether TIL
commitment was in due form. Peopli
u.s. Mccormack, 4tI Parker G. R., p. 8
The Only question therefore TO be de
termined is whether or not the facts re
cited in the Judgment of the Crimina
/ Court are OF such character as to sus
tain a Judgment for contempt.
The code, section four thousand on
! hundred and six, prescribes in wha
cases courts shall have power to punisl
for contempt. They are as follows, viz.
First-The willful misbehaviOr of an.
person in the presence Of the court or s.
near thereto as to obstruct the admins
tration of justice.
Second-The willful misbehayiOr O
anysof the officers of said court in thei
official transactions.
Third-The willful disobedience or re
sistance of any officer Of said court
party, Juror, witness or any other per
son to the lawfs4 writ, process, order
rule, decree or command Of said court
! Fourth-Abuse Of or unlawful inter
ference with the process or proceeding
of said court.
Fifth-Willfuly conversing with juror
in relation to the merits Of the cause il
the trial of which they are engaged, 0
otherwise tampering with them.
Sixth-Any other act or omission de
clared contempt by law.
The inferior courts of Tennessee hav
no power to punish as contempts tn
acts or omissions of parties and persons
other than such acts or omissions as ar
prescribed by the code or other statutOr.
enactment-StateU Us. Galloway, 3 Cald.
329.
But as the power in question has al
ways been deemed entitled to respec
and absolutely vital to the. efficiency
respectabiIity, safety and existence o
the judicial department Of the govern
ment, the sub-sectiOns of the Code abov'
| cited which declare and limit the pun
ishable causes of contempt are to b
construed so as to give them a liberia
application to the &C es which may aris
in the e2igencies Of >e courts. -Ldem
Such be- the legal principles in
velved in 4 case, it is now proper t.
examine the Judgment of the court, ant
ascertain whether it contains such de
| fects as will render it vOid-the fact
stated therein being conclusively pre-
sumed to be true.
The first statement is In the following
language, viz: sit appearing to the sat
isfaction of the court, that the Crane
Jury of this court have, as required by
law, called upon William Mclean, Tax
Collector for Shelby county, and de
manded of him that he exhibit to then
f! for their inspection, the receipts which
he holds as said Tax-CollectOr, from A
Woodward, County Trustee, for moneys
paid over by him, said " illiam Nc
| Lean, as TaX-Collector to him saiC
| Woodward as County Trustee, during
the years 1869, 1870 and 1871, and fur
theT have demanded of him, said Nc
Lean, the receipts which he holds from
the State Comptroller for moneys paiG
over to him Belonging to the State dur.
ing said years 1859, 1870 and 1871; anC
| it further appearing to the court thai
said Mclean has in his possession sniG
receipts from the said County Trustee
and State Comptroller, and that he has
wholly failed and refused to exhibit said
receipt as required by the said Grand
Jury, etc.
From this statement il appears thai
the court ordered the Grand Jury to cal
upon the petitioner and demand of him
that be exhibit the Comptroller's and
Trustees receipts. That as required by
law and in obedience TO the order of the
court, they called upon him and de-
manded the exhibition thereof, and thai
he wholly failed and refused to exhibit
them, as required by the Grand Jury
he having them in his possession.
GROUNDS FOR CON HITBiENT.
AS has before been stated, these factt
must be taken as absolutely true. Dc
they constitute ground of commitment.
The Code, section five thousand anC
eighty, provides: They d. 6. the Crane
jury are entitled 10 free access, at al
proper hours, to the Office of the County
Trustee, and to the county jail, as wei
as to all other county offices and build
ings, and to the examination, withou
charge, of all records and other paper
| in any of the county offices, iR any sodg
connected Nth their duties.
1t has been earnestly and very inge
niously argued that the vouchers which
| the Tax-Collector received from tht
County Trustee Qeaving out of the ques
ton the Comptroller's receipts) ars noi
public documents, but the private prop
erty of the Collector. Whether this bt
true or not, it is unimportant now to in
ouire. If the papers are IN any Uds
connected with the discharge OF his Off
cial duty, they become by law subjec
| to the inspection of the Grand Jury
The Grand Jury have the right to Sc,
them: they are the best evidence of the
disposition the Collector has made O.
the public funds entrusted to his care
and the Grand Jury are not driv
en- to the necessity of examining
the books of the County Trustee t(
ascertain what moneys he has received
from the collectors. They are certainly
papers in some way connected with hi
duties, and such being the case, he ha!
no right to withhold them. In addition
TO this, Section five hundred and two o
the Code makes it the duty of the Tai
Collector TO take duplicate receipts from
| the Trustee, the language of the section
| being that she shall take" 1t woulC
seem strange that the law should requir'
him to take, as Tax Collector, recei5ts II
no wise connected with the duties of hi
office -and this is the test, for if they ar.
in any tDdy connected with his Office, h,
must produce them.
We have then this state Of facts. TIL,
collector is in possession of certain pa
pers which the law requires him to ex
hibit to the Grand Jury when demand
ed. The Grand Jury acting under tn.
orders of the court make the demand
upon him in the manner required by law
he refuses to exhibit them. Is this nC
contempt of courts. We have seen tina
subsection third of Section four thou
sand one hundred and six of the Cod,
makes the wilful disobedience Of any
person to the hwful writ, process, order
rule, decree or command of the court {
contempt.
Does it not follow inevitably that {
contempt has been committed?
1t is, said that the judgment does moi
recite that the disobedience was twill.
ful.v The law presumes, in the absence
of proof TO the contrary, that what i:
done is done willfully. And if the rec.
ord is silent as to the jurisdictional facts
they will be presumed to have beer
duly established. Hurd on ha6cos cor.
Pats, page S70.
THE DECISION.
1t is unnecessary, therefore, to exam.
inc the other matters of contempt stated
in the record, ,as those already enumerat-
ed fully justify the action OF the court
1t becomes my duty to dismiss the
petition and remand the petitioner.
| LAW REPORTS.