Court Opinion

ID: 9778814
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:21:35.536995+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:12.367693
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Mr. Justice Culver
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Relator has filed a motion for rehearing praying that our original order be set aside and that the original mandamus be granted. In this motion he says that, notwithstanding the view expressed in our opinion that a judge would not attempt to enforce an order which we had indicated to be void, the respondent judge by public utterances had revealed a fixed and determined intention to sentence the relator to jail. He further reiterates his contentions that a writ of habeas corpus issued after he had been placed in jail is inadequate and that his constitutional rights are being impaired.
In the event the Court will not consider its denial of writ of mandamus relator prays that this motion be regarded as an application for a writ of habeas corpus and that this writ be presently granted to free him from implied restraint and threats of arrest.
Relator quotes from a number of newspaper accounts that reveal reported threats on the part of the judge to impose a jail sentence upon the relator at the first opportunity and to institute extradition proceedings to have him arrested in Missouri and brought to Dallas for the purpose of executing the judgment of contempt heretofore assessed. Copies of these newspaper articles are attached to the motion.
*5056 In the first place these reports are entirely hearsay and cannot be considered as evidence of what the judge actually intends to do. Even if they were of probative force it is to be said possibly in explanation that the respondent judge may not have understood the full import of our decision. In his reply to the motion for rehearing he says: “It should also be pointed out that Relator’s repeated reference to the Order of Contempt as a ‘void order’ is without support. This is a matter that can and should properly be heard only in the event Relator properly files an Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus.” A reading of our original opinion would certainly indicate our view that the contempt order being without support in the evidence was void, but we did not expressly say as much.
In order that there may be no misunderstanding we now hold that as to the relator, Deramus, the contempt order is wholly void and will not support any fine or imprisonment.
We again assert not only the presumption but a very firm belief that no trial judge will attempt to enforce an order that we have held to be void and direct confinement thereunder. If this should occur it would be for the first time in the history of Texas jurisprudence so far as we know.
7 In the second place we further presume according to the practice followed by the judge heretofore in this case, that the relator is under no danger of arrest, certainly not prior to the service on him of a notice to appear in court and his failure to respect that notice. Admittedly relator would be put to considerable inconvenience in making an appearance, but that is a matter of degree rather than a difference.
We do not perceive that the rlator at the present time is under any character of restraint whatever. He may go and come as freely as he sees fit and for this motion to be treated as an application for a writ of habeas corpus would be premature.
The motion will be overruled.
Opinion delivered April 6, 1960.