
    Ex parte BULLINGTON.
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 10, 1912.)
    1. Contempt (§ 10) — Conduct Constituting Contempt — Aegument op Attobney.
    The conduct of an attorney, insisting on his right to argue the law as applicable to the facts of the case, and resuming that line of argument after being told by the court that he had no right to argue the law to the jury, does not constitute contempt of court, as an attorney in'his argument has a right to state his theory of the law, and to argue whether or not the evidence would render his client liable.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Contempt, Cent. Dig. §§ 19-22; Dec. Dig. § 10.)
    2. Contempt (§ 63) — Peoceedings — Sufficiency op Oedee.
    An order by the court, in contempt proceedings, that an attorney be fined for contempt “for refusing to obey orders of the court in open court,” and remanded to the custody of the sheriff until the fine is paid, is insufficient for indefiniteness, and for failure to state what orders he refused to obey.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Contempt, Cent. Dig. §§ 195, 197-201; Dec. Dig. § 63.]
    Original application by Orville Bullington for writ of habeas corpus.
    Relator ordered discharged.
    Orville Bullington, of Wichita Falls, in pro. per. C. E. Lane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    
      
       For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r indexes
    
   HARPER, J.

Under the evidence on the hearing of this habeas corpus, it appears relator was an attorney for a railway company in. the trial of a damage case in the county court of Wichita county.' In presenting the case to the jury, he argued that, the animal (for the value of which the railroad was being sued) having been killed at a point where the right of way was fenced, the road would only be liable in the event those in charge of the train had failed to use ordinary care to discover the animal, and guilty of gross negligence, and he assumed the court would so charge the jury. The court interrupted relator, and told him he had no right to argue the law to the jury, and in so doing he was not showing proper .respect to the court. Relator stated he had shown no disrespect to the court, and insisted he had a right to argue the law as applicable to the facts in the case. The court made no reply, when relator resumed the same line of argument, and was fined by the court for contempt. The judgment entered is as follows: “It is ordered by the court that O. Bullington be and he is hereby fined $10 for contempt, in this, to wit, for refusing to obey orders of the court in open court, and the said O. Bullington is remanded to the custody of the sheriff until said fine is paid.” Under said judgment and a writ issued thereon relator was arrested, and sued out a writ of habeas corpus, which was granted by this court. Under the evidence adduced on this hearing, we do not think his conduct would constitute a contempt of court. He had a right in his argument to state to the jury his theory of the law, and to argue whether or not the evidence would render his client liable for damages.

In addition to this, the order is rather vague and indefinite, and does not state what orders he refused to obey, and is therefore insufficient.

Relator is ordered discharged.  