Court Opinion

ID: 9645878
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:38:35.406145+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:32.422270
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
MORRISON, Presiding Judge.
Relator strenuously urges that the effect of our original opinion was to hold him guilty of “direct contempt” and that we erred in so holding because it was not shown that relator *405personally placed the copies of the newspaper in the corridor adjacent to the courtroom.
While it is true that we did state in our original opinion herein that we were not committed to the proposition that this was a case of constructive contempt, this entire proceeding appears to have been initiated and tried on the theory that relator was guilty of constructive contempt, and we have again concluded from a re-examination of the record that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that relator published the contemptuous matter which constitutes the basis for this proceeding. In addition to what we pointed out originally, the state offered the evidence of employees of the West Texas Office Supply Company, who testified that they made offset plates for the C.C.C. News and that relator brought the order into their place of business and paid for the work when it had been done-They identified copies of the C.C.C. News introduced in evidence as being work which relator had brought to their shop and from which they made the plates, all of which bear the same format. Further, the state called Ricky Glover, who testified that relator hired him to deliver copies of the C.C.C. News and that he had on several occasions seen relator doing the printing thereof himself. The witness Boone, an attorney, testified that he had secured the corporate charter for relator and that relator had on occasions shown him material which later appeared in the C.C.C. News. C. H. Glover testified further that he was relator’s landlord and on occasions helped relator run off and distribute copies of the C.C.C. News. Another witness was called, who testified that he had bought a share of stock in the John Aldridge Publishing Company from relator.
We find no merit in relator’s contention that contempt is not here shown because the copies of the C.C.C. News were found in the corridor during the noon recess.
Remaining convinced that we properly disposed of this cause originally, relator’s motion for rehearing is overruled.