In Re Moore

Mar 24, 1908
6818
Reporters:
, ,
Before:
Jones

The opinion of the COurt was delivered by

Mr. Justice Jones.

Oh M:ay 17, 1907, Judge R. C. Watts, presiding in the Court of General ‘Sessions for Laurens County, upon affidavit of J. K. Tempteton, issued a rule against Ludie J. Moore, Torn! J. Blalock ‘and others to show! cause before the presiding judge -at the next term! of said Court why they should not be ‘attached for contempt for interfering or attempting to’ interferе with a juror in the discharge of his duties. Return, toi the rule was made before Judge Ernest Gary, presiding at the term of the ‘Court, and he adjudged Lulie J. Moore and Thomas Blalоck guilty of contempt and imposed upon each! a fine of fifty dollars, аnd in default of payment, imprisonment in the county jail until they purge themselves of said contempt or be liberated by the further order of the Court.

1 This is a procеeding and judgment in crimina1! contempt and the appeal must be heard as if from a judgment in a criminal case. State v. Nathans, 49 S. C., 205, 27 S. E., 52. We can not, therefore, review any questiоn of fact but can only inquire ‍​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‍as to the jurisdiction of the Court and whether there wаs error of law.

2 The jurisdiction of the Court to punish for contempt is not disputed. The only question presented by the exceptions which’ w;e can consider is, whеther there Was any evidence whatever tending to show contempt of Court; for if there was no such’ evidence there would be reversible error of law.

The ‘affidavit of J. K. Templeton was “That he was regularly drawn, and served, to aсt as a petit juror for the second week of the present term of Court. Thаt after he was served by the sheriff, to wit; on ‘the 7th day of May, 1907, at ‘Clinton, in said State and сounty, he was approached by one Tom Blalock, when asked deрonent if be would not favor his friend, Mr. G. Wash Hunter, on his trial! for murder. Deponent replied that he did not know anything about the case; that he had never heard the evi *401 dеnoe, -and: that be could not express an opinion. Blalock then asked him (deponent) to sa,y nothing about the conversation, and asked depоnent to do all he could for Hunter, That on last ‘Saturday, at ‘Clinton, one Ludie Moоre approached deponent and had a conversation with him, in which said Moore said ‍​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‍he knew deponent was on the jury and he wanted him to do аll he could for G. Wash Hunter. Deponent replied to him| in substance about what he had told Blalock. * * * That immediatdly preceding deponent’s conversatiоn at Clinton with Ludie Moore the said Moore had been talking with R. Lee Hunter.”

■ This was somе‘’ evidence of an attempt to improperly influence a juror in the disсharge of his duty, of conduct which was calculated to’ impede and obstruct the proper administration of justice. ‘Such conduct is punishable as cоntempt of Court. It is not essential to such an offense that the misconduct should be in .the presence of the Court or within the courthouse precincts.

3 It is contended that Section 36 3, Criminal Code, prescribes punishment for corrupting or attempting to corrupt a juror, and if appellants are guilty of such an offense they should have been indicted under said section, and were not amenable to a rule to show cause as for contempt.

The statute forbid an аttempt to ‍​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‍corrupt a juror by offering u gift or gratuity with intent to influence his decision and does not strictly apply to .an attempt to exercise personal influence, not connected with the offer of a gift or gratuity, as in the present case.

4 If the rule stated in 7 Ency. Law, 2d ed., 66, to the effect that the indictability of an offеnse is no bar to the right of the Court to punish it as a contempt, citing State v. Williams, 2 Spear’s Law, 26, and other cases in support of the text, ‍​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‍is not the law of this State, but that thе contrary rule declared in State v. Blackwell, 10 S. C., 35, must govern the appellants are not helped, for the offense rdade *402 punishable by the statute is’ not the precise оffense which was punished as contempt in this ease.

The exceptions are overruled and the judgment ‍​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​​‌​​​‌​‌​‌‍of the Circuit Court is affirmed.