{
  "id": 8728605,
  "name": "The State against Joseph J. Simmons",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Simmons",
  "decision_date": "1839-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "265",
  "last_page": "267",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "1 Ark. 265"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 257,
    "char_count": 4413,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.466,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.362760349824193e-08,
      "percentile": 0.390030268173936
    },
    "sha256": "b6a969358a71d50ffe75500f61502dce4a0edea5d680bf7d95b6ab2c1a73935c",
    "simhash": "1:8061e6886cb79091",
    "word_count": 777
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:13:03.293086+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The State against Joseph J. Simmons."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Ringo, Chief Justice,\ndelivered the opinion of the Court:\nOn the motion of the plaintiff, a rule was made at the last term of this court, against Joseph J. Simmons, Clerk of (he Circuit Court of Conway County, to show cause at the present term, why he should not be attached for failing to make due return of the writ of error issued, and addressed to him in this case.\nAt the present term, said Simmons personally appeared, in obedience to said rule, and filed his affidavit, by way of showing cause against the rule, stating \u201c that he was clerk under the territorial government, and as such, made out and certified records to the Superior C\u00b0urt\u00bb and it was not then required, as he understood the law and practice, to attach the writ of error to the record, and he 'never knew before, that the law had been changed, and that the clerk was now required by law, to attach the writ of error by seal, to the transcript \u2022of the record-; and that his omission to attach the writ of error, was not with a design to show contempt to the court or its authority, but from the fact that he was utterly ignorant that it was necessary or required,\u201d and thereupon moved the court to discharge the rule.\nIs this showing sufficient? The ninth section-of the act of1836,<\u00a3 to regulate the practice in the Supreme Court in appeals and writs of error incivil cases,\u201d pamphlet laws, p. 131, provides that all\u2019writs- of error shall be returned, signed by the-clerk of the court to which-such writ shall be addressed, under the seal thereof, and if any clerk shall fail to \u00a1 make due return of any writ to the Supreme Court, he shall be liable -to be.punished by such court on attachment for his contempt, in the \u25a0same manner as officers of other courts, for disobeying the process or orders of such courts. In the present case, the writ of error had not the return of the'Clerk of the Circuit Court, signed by him and sealed with the seal of the court of which he was clerk, either \u25a0 endorsed thereon or attached thereto, as required by- the provisions of the statute, and although such return may not have been required by the law or practice under the territorial government- of Arkansas, we think there cannot exist a reasonable doubt, -'that it is required by 'the above recited statute, and the failure-of the clerk to make such return, is in contemplation of the statute, a contempt of the law, and the process and authority of the court, for which the clerk is liable to be attached \u2022 and punished by this court.\n\u2019\u2022Here ignorance of the lawis-the principal ground relied upon to discharge the rule, although in connection therewith, the clerk expressly disavows on oath, any \u201c design to show contempt to the-court or its authorises,\u201d notwithstanding the maxim ignorantia legis non excusal, which applies as forcibly to acts done or omitted, which amount in legal contemplation to a contempt of the process and authority-of the court, as to acts committed or-omitted in violation of the criminal or civil laws of the land. It cannot, in eithercase amount to a-defence or justification.\nIn this case, facts amounting in law to a contempt being admitted, the respondent cannot avoid the legal consequence thereof by avowing simply that no contempt was thereby intended.\nThe practice on the subject not having been hitherto well'established, the court deem it proper thus definitely to settle the rule, that the officers subject to its Operation may understand distinctly the responsibility under which they act.\nWherefore it is the opinion of this court, that the cause shown by the respondent is not sufficient to discharge the rule, and the same must, therefore, be made,absolute.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Ringo, Chief Justice,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The State against Joseph J. Simmons.\nMotion for rule to show cause why an attachment should not issue for a contempt.\nUnder the statute of 1836, \u201c to regulate the practice in the Supreme Court,\u201d it is necessary for the Clerk of the Circuit Court to whom a writ of error is directed, either to endorse upon the writ of error, or attach to it, his return, signed as clerk, and sealed with his seal of office.\nA failure to make return, is a contempt of this court; and the clerk is not excused because he was ignorant of the law, nor although he states in his answer, that no contempt was intended.\nThis was a motion, in the case of Lewis S. Tweedy vs. Benjamin Murphy, in error to Conway Circuit Court, for a rule against the clerk of that court."
  },
  "file_name": "0265-01",
  "first_page_order": 269,
  "last_page_order": 271
}