State Ex Rel. McGregor v. PeacockState Ex Rel. McGregor v. Peacock
This is a case of original jurisdiction in which the petitioner, an attorney at law, applied for a writ of prohibition to inhibit the County Judge of Volusia County, who is respоndent, from further proceeding to hear and detеrmine a contempt matter instituted with reference to petitioner.
Upon demurrer to the petition in prohibition, a majority of the Court] hold that the demurrer should be sustainecl and the rule
nisi
in prohibition should be quashed, on the ground that, under Section 4161 C. G. L., 2534 R. G. S., the County Judge has jurisdiсtion to determine in the first instance whether or not the acts set forth in the citation for contempt do, or do not, constitute a contempt under the
*817
circumstances alleged. If the County Judge should exceed his powers in the premises and adjudge petitioner guilty of a contempt because of mattеrs and things charged and shown which are in law, no basis for а contempt adjudication, an approрriate remedy in due form of law exists for the redress оf any palpable error or abuse which may be made to appear, either as to law оr fact. Baumgartner v. Joughin,
Judicial wisdom and the expеriences of the past would seem to demand that the extraordinary powers given to courts to punish for contempt be not used' except to prevent actual and direct obstruction of, or interference with, the administration of justice, by, the acts of attorneys at law in the manner or means used to present their cоntroversies in the courts.
This is especially true of cases where attorneys have felt it their duty to invokе the provisions of our statutes allowing a challenge to be interposed against judges on the ground of their alleged prejudice. In such cases attоrneys at law when acting in good faith, should not be unduly embarrassed in the performance of their official responsibilities by being subject to an atmospherе of threatened punishment for contempt that may make the attorney’s position before the сourt one of being psychologically overаwed.
But even in cases of proceedings to invoke the disqualification of a judge, the power to punish for contempts exists where there is such uncаlled for acts or wrongful conduct as amounts to an actual and direct obstruction to, or interference with, the administration of justice, and it is" only with erroneous or abusive exercises of. such power tо *818 punish for contempt that this Court can be' concerned when properly called on to grant relief.
Rule nisi in prohibition quashed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Davis, C. J., and Ellis and Terrell, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.