Turquette v. State

Habt, C. J., (after stating the facts). The record m this case shows a proceeding instituted by the municipal court of Texarkana, Arkansas, against W. E. Turquette for an alleged contempt charged to have been committed by striking and beating said municipal judge because he had fined -said Turquette for violation of a city ordinance. Turquette was fined in the municipal court in the State of Arkansas on the 2d day of January, -1926, and the assault was made in the State of Texas on January 4, 1926. The municipal court was still in session, but had taken a short recess, during which Judge Josephs had g-one to a drugstore which was situated in the city of Texarkana, Texas, about two hundred feet from the boundary line between the States of Texas and Arkansas. This court has held, in effect, that all acts which impede or obstruct a court of justice or which tend to produce such effect, whether done in or out of court, are to be considered as done in the presence of the court, and are punishable as contempt. Weldon v. State, 150 Ark. 407, 234 S. W. 466. In that case, during a recess of the court, the circuit judge - was struck by Weldon for conduct in the performance of his'judicial duties in trying the case of the State of Arkansas against said Weldon. The case of the State of Arkansas against Weldon was tried at the courthouse in the city of Hot Springs, in Garland County, Arkansas, and the assault and battery was made upon the judge at a bathing place about eight.miles from Hot Springs, but which was in Garland County. The court, following the rule of the common law, held that the conduct, of Weldon was calculated to impede or obstruct the circuit court in the administration of justice, and that the act should be considered as done in the presence of the court, although it was done during a recess of the court and .about eight miles distant from the courthouse. It is insisted, however, that the assault and battery in the present case was committed outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the municipal court of the city of Texarkana, Arkansas, and, for that reason, the court had no power to pnnish for contempt. We have not been cited to any case where the precise question- has been presented, and-have not been able to find any such case on onr own research. A majority of the court, however, is of the opinion that, under the doctrine of the Weldon case and of- the decisions from other courts upon which it was partly based, this does not make any difference. It is perfectly plain that Turquette’s object was to embarrass or obstruct Judge Josephs in the discharge of his duties. He had been granted an appeal by the municipal court, but the transcript had not yet been lodged in the circuit court. Turquette was fined in the municipal court on Saturday, and the assault was made upon Judge Josephs on the following Monday. Tur-quette evidently intended to influence Judge Josephs in the matter, and the special judge trying the contempt -proceeding was warranted in finding that the assault was made while the case was still pending in the municipal court and at a time when that court had control over its judgment. The court made a special finding that, at the time the municipal judge was struck by Turquette, the latter said: “I’ll show you what it is to have me before your court and fine me.” This is a-quotation from the testimony of Judge Josephs, and, upon appeal, the finding of the. court below must be taken by us as reflecting the purpose for which the assault was made. In short, the trial judge was warranted in finding that the assault was made for the purpose of influencing the municipal court in the trial of the case against Tur-quette, and that, while the assault was committed in the State of Texas, it was so near the municipal courthouse in the State of- Arkansas that it should be considered as to have been consummated there, and, for that reason, it was committed in the constructive presence of the court. The writer believes the better, view is to- hold that, the act having been committed outside of the terriT torial jurisdiction of the courts of the State of Arkansas, Turquette was not guilty of contempt. • ■ • < It is next contended that the circuit court erred in not quashing the judgment of the municipal conrt punishing Turquette for contempt on the ground that the municipal court is not a court of record and therefore could not punish Turquette for contempt of court under the rule laid down in Ex parte Patterson, 110 Ark. 94, 161 S. W. 173. We do not agree with counsel in this contention. The municipal court of Texarkana, Arkansas, was created by the Legislature of 1917. Acts of 1917, vol. 1, page 734. The act provides that the judge of the municipal court shall he at least twenty-five years of age, of good moral character, learned in the law, two years a resident -of the State, and that he shall have have practiced law six years. His salary is fixed at $1,500 a year. The act provides that 'the city clerk shall be the clerk of the municipal court, and that' the city attorney shall be present and prosecute all cases arising out of the city- ordinances. The municipal clerk is required, to keep a complete docket of all civil and criminal pro ceedings to the extent directed by the judge. Hence we are of the opinion that the statute creating said municipal court made it a court of record, and that it has the same power to punish for contempt as other' courts of record. 6 R. C. L., § 29, page 517. It follows that the judgment of the circuit court was correct, and it will therefore be affirmed.