E. W. WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. A. J. MATHEWS, etc., Respondent.
RE-SUBMITTED FEBRUARY 17, 1911. DECIDED FEBRUARY 24, 1911.
Toliver, C. J., Wood and MeCants-Stewart, JJ.
1. There can be no summary trial without statutory provision therefor.
2. A judge of an inferior court can punish an attorney for contempt only when the same is committed in open court, and has no power to suspend or withdraw his license.
3. The act respecting the payment of costs does not apply to writs of certiorari.
Mr. Justice Wood delivered the opinion of the court :
Contempt—Certiorari to review proceedings. The origin of the case was in the Court of Quarter Sessions and Common Pleas of Montserrado County at its December term, 1910, upon a citation or letter issued by the clerk of said court and directed to the above named plaintiff in certiorari, then defendant in the court below, and an attorney-at-law, citing him to put in his appearance at the office of His Honor, Judge A. J. Mathews, on the fourth of November, A. D. 1910, to answer an alleged contempt.
It appears from the record of said case that one Albert R. Hayes lodged a complaint in the office of said judge against the aforesaid attorney, E. W. Williams, plaintiff in certiorari, then defendant in the court below, for having appeared in a justice of the peace court of the County of Montserrado against the said Albert R. Hayes, complainant, without being duly licensed to practice law in said court or any other court of this Republic. Whereupon the said A. J. Mathews assumed jurisdiction in said cause, and ordered said plaintiff in certiorari, then defendant in the court below, through the clerk of the Court of Quarter Sessions and Common Pleas of the aforesaid county to put in his appearance at the office of said judge on the above mentioned day, jurisdiction having been taken in the premises by said Judge A. J. Mathews, defendant in certiorari. He then proceeded to investigate said cause in a summary manlier; and having arrived at his determination in the premises, ruled that said attorney E. W. Williams, plaintiff in certiorari, defendant in the court below, pay a fine of ten dollars for an alleged contempt to one Coleman, a justice of the peace of the settlement of Brewersville, of said county, while sitting in court; also to pay an additional fine of fifty dollars together with all costs of the court below, or be imprisoned until said amount for contempt is paid; and further that the said attorney’s, plaintiff in certiorari, license shall be withdrawn for twelve calendar months; to which rulings and judgment the said attorney, E. W. Williams, excepted and petitioned the Honorable It. B. Richardson, then one of the Associate Justices of this court, for a certiorari to issue to said Judge A. J. Mathews commanding him to certify the proceedings in the premises to this present term of court; which was granted by said Associate Justice, November 15th, 1910.
The case now being before this court upon a certiorari, we will now consider some of the issues raised in the court below so that substantial justice may be had in the premises. The plaintiff in certiorari alleges in the second count of his said petition to the Honorable R. B. Richardson for a certiorari to Judge A. J. Mathews, defendant in certiorari, that on the 10th day of November upon summary proceedings illegally had upon the letter or citation referred to in the preceding paragraph of his said petition that he had presented a motion to said Judge A. J. Mathews, defendant in certiorari, to dismiss the said matter for the reason that he had not been legally summoned to appear before the said Court of Quarter Sessions and Common Pleas, Montserrado County, to answer any legal charge made against him, which motion said judge, defendant in certiorari, refused to entertain, and further to allow said plaintiff’s in certiorari exception to such refusal to be noted upon the record, or to keep any records of the proceedings whatever.
The court will here say that summary actions are those which are brought into court not by summons, but by petition corresponding to summary proceedings.
In no case can the party be tried summarily unless when such proceedings are authorized by legislative authority, except in cases of contempt, for the common law is a stranger to such a mode of trial. (See Bouv. L. D., val. 2, p. 683, headed Summary Actions, and Summary Proceedings.)
We will next consider what is a contempt. Judge Bouvier defines contempt to be “A wilful disregard or disobedience of a public authority : courts of justice have an inherent power to punish all persons for contempt of their rules and orders, for disobedience of their process, and for disturbing them in their proceedings. Contempts of court are of two kinds; such as are committed in the presence of the court and which interrupt its proceedings, which may be summarily punished by order of the presiding judge ; and constructive contempts, arising from a refusal to comply with an order of court. The power of inferior courts to punish for contempt is usually restricted to contempts committed in the presence of the court.” (Bouv. L. D., p. 389.) The Act of the Legislature of Liberia, 1878, page 11, defining the punishment of contempts by attorneys and counsellors at law in the several courts of this Republic, section I reads : “That from and after the passage of this Act, the license or privilege of an attorney or counsellor at law shall only be withdrawn or suspended for contempt offered to the Supreme Court of this Republic.”
Section II of said Act reads as follows “It is further enacted that the punishment for all contempts of the subordinate courts of record established in the several counties of this Republic shall not extend further than fine or imprisonment ; said fine not to be over fifty dollars, nor imprisonment longer than the actual session or time for which said court is convened, however, that such contempts be committed in open court.
This court says that while it is within the purview of a judge of an inferior tribunal to punish persons for contempt, yet such contempt must be committed in the presence of the open court. which may be summarily punished by order of the presiding judge, and constructive contempts arising from a refusal to comply with an order of court. No judge of an inferior court under the statute law of Liberia as above recited can legally withdraw a license or suspend an attorney or counsellor at law from the bar for contempt offered to said judge.
This prerogative is absolutely with the Supreme Court of this Republic and hence can not be exercised by a judge of an inferior judicature.
The court upon review of this case observes “that the fees have not been paid for the records” as is alleged by the clerk of the court below. This case has been brought before this court upon a writ of certiorari, which is a remedial writ issued by a superior tribunal to a court of inferior jurisdiction commanding it to forward the record for review, upon some alleged irregularity in law, which occurred at the trial in the court below. It is not in the nature of an appeal, nor a writ of error; the writ of certiorari operates as a supersedeas to further proceedings in the court below, which writ is peremptory and must be obeyed by the judge of the court below. It is, therefore, the opinion of this court that the Act (Leg. Lib. 1894) respecting the payment of costs does not apply to writs of certiorari: see the case J. W. West v. The Republic of Liberia (1 Lib. L. R. 386).
The court is further of the opinion that the judge of the court below, defendant in certiorari, erred in imposing a fine of sixty dollars and all costs of said court on the said plaintiff in certiorari as the record shows for an alleged contempt said to have been committed before one Coleman, a justice of the peace aforesaid in open court. And further that the said judge of the court below, defendant in certiorari, erred in ruling that the license of the said attorney E. W. Williams, plaintiff in certiorari, shall be withdrawn for twelve calendar months. Viewing this case from every legal standpoint this court fails to see by what means the judge of the court below, defendant in certiorari, arrived at the conclusion, that the defendant below, now plaintiff in certiorari, should pay a fine of sixty dollars, together with all costs, and further that his license shall be withdrawn for twelve calendar months. This conclusion being unsupported by law, this court feels bound to reverse the judgment of said court below.
Therefore, this court adjudges : that the judgment of the court below is reversed, and that the defendant in certiorari pay all legal costs of this action. And the clerk of this court in due form will notify the court below to the effect of this judgment.
[Mr. Justice McCants-Stewart, having acted as counsel for petitioner when at the bar, declared his disqualification and took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.]
Edwin Barclay, for petitioner. C. B. Dunbar, for respondent by brief.