Ray Harwood Stieffel
Sex: M
Individual Information
Birth Date: 11 Feb 1910 - New Orleans, Orleans, Louisiana, USA
Christening:
Death: 3 Dec 1959 - Mercy Hospital, New Orleans, Orleans, Louisiana, USA
Burial: 6 Dec 1959 - Fayard Cemetery, Waveland, Hancock, Mississippi, USA
Cause of Death:
Events
• Residence: 30 Apr 1952, Waveland, Hancock, Mississippi, USA.
Parents
Father: Emile Laurant Stieffel
Mother: Arthelia Jane Fayard
Spouses and Children
1. *Myrtle Theresa Bishop
Marriage:
Notes
General:
Per New Orleans birth index:
February 11, 1910
STIEFFEL, RAY HARWOOD
Mother: FAYARD, ARTHELIA J
Father: STIEFFEL, EMILE LAWRENCE
Orleans parishPage: 844 Volume: 139
Per 1910 US Census 4/1/1910 1824 Terpsichore New Orleans, Orleans, Louisiana
Edward Stieffel is the 38 year old white male married head of household, born in Louisiana, his parents in French speaking Alsace, Germany. He works as a clerk for the railroad, and rents his home. His wife is Arthelia Stieffel, 29 years old, born in Mississippi as were her parents. She has had 9 children, 4 still living and at home. All four were born in Louisiana: 7 year old son, Fayard Stieffel; 5 year old son Alton Stieffel; 2 year old daughter Arthelia Stieffel; and 2 month old daughter [?] Ray Stieffel.
Per Times-Picayune 5/18/1913 Page 24
A COMMUNION PARTY
On Monday, May 12, a communion party was given at the residence of Mr. and Mrs. E. L. Stieffel, 1824 Terpsichore Street, in honor of their two sons, Fayard and Alton. Those present were: Mr. and Mrs. E. L. Stieffel, Mr. and Mrs. H. A. Thompson, Mr. and Mrs. W. Henecko, Mr. and Mrs. C. Steiffel (sp), Mr. and Mrs. L. Woodworth, Mr. and Mrs. Dan Bourgeois, Mr. and Mrs. J. L. Schulz, Sr., Messrs. Dan Fayard, H. Strouder, F. P. Deck, A. Deck, J. L. Schulz, Jr., I. F. Schulz, C. Morel, A. Goldenberg, C. Hardt, H. Dupuis, Joseph Jure, J. M. Penucheau, W. Hiemel, L. Kline, E. L. Bourgeois, Z. A. Bourgeois, E. F. Stieffel, A. J. Stieffel, Alfred Autz, Ray H. Stieffel, James J. Stieffel, C. Lejuerme, O. Aragon, Mrs. F. C. Deck, Misses S. Mullen, A. Coignard, E. Deck, M. Goldenberg, A. Deck, V. Fayard, L. Buerkle, L. Morel, I. Recknagle, D. Aragon, N. Esposito, N. Condren, T. Aragon, A. Woodworth, M. Woodworth, A. Stieffel, C. Drell, N. Bourgeois, T. Bourgeois, C. Carrio, M. Becke, A. schulz, G. Bertucci, Doris Levy, H. Flanagan, D. Thompson, E. Donahue, G. Stieffel.
Per 1920 US Census: 1/7/1920 1703 Carondelet St, Ward 1, New Orleans, Orleans, LA
Emile L. Stieffel is the 44 year old white male head of household, who rents his home. He was born in Louisiana, his parents in French speaking Alsace-Lorraine. He is a clerk for the Railroad. His wife is 39 year old Arthelia Stieffel, born in Mississippi, as were her parents. They have 5 children, all born in Louisiana: 17 year old son, Emile F. Stieffel, attends school and is a stenographer for an insurance company; 15 year old son, Alton J. Stieffel, attends school and is an office boy for a lawyer; 12 year old daughter, Arthelia Stieffel, attends school; 9 year old son, Ray H. Stieffel, attends school; 6 year old son, James J. Stieffel, attends school.
Per Obituary in the Times-Picayune 12/5/1959 Page 16
STIEFFEL -- On Thursday, December 3, 1959, at 11:55 o'clock p. m., in Mercy hospital, New Orleans, La., RAY HARWOOD STIEFFEL SR. Age 49 years. Husband of Myrtle Bishop of Waveland, Miss. Father of Ray H., Jr., Herbert L. and Stephen J. Stieffel, all of Waveland, Miss. Brother of Alton J. Stieffel of Waveland, and Mrs. Arthelia J. Stieffel of Houston, Texas. Also survived by 7 grandchildren and a number of nieces and nephews. Son of Emile L. Stieffel and the late Arthelia Jane Fayard.
Relatives and friends of the family are invited to attend the funeral, which will take place from the Fahey funeral home, Bay St. Louis, Miss., Sunday, Dec. 6, 1959, followed by religious services at St. Clair's Catholic church, Waveland, Miss., at 2:30 o'clock.
Interment Fayard cemetery, Waveland Miss. Parlors will be open after 7:30 p. m. until midnight Saturday.
Per New Orleans death index:
December 3, 1959At age 49
STIEFFEL, RAY HARWOOD
Orleans parish Page: 8144 Volume: 0
Per Hancock County Historical Society
# Last Name First NameBirth Death Comment
29 StieffelRay H., Sr. 02/11/1910 12/04/1959 husband of Myrtle Bishop Stieffel
Per Times-Picayune 6/16/1961 Page 43
JEFFERSON RECORDS OF THE DAY
CIVIL COURT DECISIONS SUCCESSIONS
Succession of Ray Harwood Stieffel Sr. et al, will and possession.
NOVEMBER 28, 1966
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF RAY H. STIEFFEL, SR., DECEASED, MYRTLE BISHOP STIEFFEL DABDOUB
v.
DAVID J. VENUS, III
PATTERSON, JUSTICE:
The administratrix of the estate of Ray H. Stieffel, Sr. brought suit in the Chancery Court of Hancock County under the authority of Mississippi Code Annotated section 545 (1956) against David J. Venus, III, and Ray H. Stieffel, Jr., and Herbert L. Stieffel, the latter two being the sons of the deceased and the petitioner, praying for a discovery against the said defendants as to certain monies and personal property in the approximate sum of $90,000, alleged to have been wrongfully withheld from the administratrix by the said defendants. She prays for the delivery of such sum or any part thereof into the assets of said estate if it is found by discovery to be in the possession or under the control of the defendants.
The sons of the petitioner, Ray H. Stieffel, Jr., and Herbert L. Stieffel, answered the bill exhibited against them. The details of the answer are not enumerated here as their answer is not before the court on appeal.
The defendant, David J. Venus, III, responded to the bill of complaint by a motion requesting the court to strike and dismiss the petition for discovery and recovery of assets of the estate. The basis of such motion was that the business in which the decedent and movant were engaged during the lifetime of decedent was that of wholesale and retail sale of intoxicating liquor, and as such the business operation in violation of the liquor laws of the State of Mississippi did not give rise to enforceable property
rights on behalf of the administratrix of the estate. Venus based this motion upon two statutes. Mississippi Code Annotated section 2612 (1956) provides as follows:
If any person shall trust or give credit to another for intoxicating liquors, he shall lose the debt, and be forever disabled from recovering the same or any part thereof; and all notes or securities given therefor, under whatever pretense, shall be void.
Mississippi Code Annotated section 2618 (1956) provides in part as follows:
No property rights shall exist in any person, natural or artificial, or be vested in them in any intoxicating liquors or intoxicating drinks prohibited by this chapter from being manufactured, or distilled, or sold, or possessed, . . . when such articles are being kept or used, directly or indirectly, as means and appliances to violate the provisions of this chapter, . . .
In addition to the assertion that petitioner has no property right in that which she seeks by discovery, the movant also asserts in his motion to strike that the petition requires an answer that would tend to incriminate him and deny to him his constitutional right against self-incrimination as provided for by Mississippi Constitution section 26 (1890).
The lower court, which considered the defendant's motion to strike, in effect the same as a motion for a rule of court, sustained the motion and the petition was dismissed.
The administratrix appeals here assigning as error the following:
(1) The court erred in sustaining the motion to strike, as by the motion defendant waived the right granted by the Constitution against self-incrimination.
(2) The court erred in sustaining appellee's motion to strike the petition of the appellant to
discover and recover the assets of the estate of Ray H. Stieffel, Sr., deceased, under the provisions of Mississippi Code Annotated section 545 (1956).
We are of the opinion the first assignment of error is not well taken. In State v. Myers, 244 Miss. 778, 146 So. 2d 334 (1962), in response to a question as to how a defendant should raise objection to answering a bill that might require him to incriminate himself, we held:
When a question is asked which he is privileged from answering, he is entitled to the protection guaranteed by the Constitution. This is but saying that the constitutional rights of the citizen will be protected, but they will be protected in an orderly way . . . . 244 Miss. at 787, 146 So. 2d at 338.
(T)he defendants' objection to being required to answer parts of the bill, believed by them to require answers tending to incriminate them, should have been brought to the attention of the court by proper pleading before the answer was made. A motion requesting a rule of court, on the particular answer required by the bill, and believed by defendants to tend to incriminate them, is a method heretofore approved. . . . 244 Miss. at 788, 146 So. 2d at 338.
We are of the opinion, therefore, that the defendant did not waive his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination by the filing of the motion to strike.
We are of the opinion that the second assignment of error is well taken and that the cause of action must be reversed and remanded.
Mississippi Code Annotated section 2630 (1956) provides as follows:
No person shall be excused from attending and testifying before a grand jury, or before any court, or in any
cause or proceeding, criminal or otherwise, based upon or growing out of any alleged violation of this chapter, or any amendment thereof, on the ground and for the reason that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of him, may tend to criminate him or subject him to a penalty or forfeiture. But no person shall be prosecuted or subject to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter or thing, concerning which he may testify, or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, before the grand jury, or any court; Provided, that no person so testifying shall be exempt from prosecution or punishment for perjury in so testifying. Any person who shall neglect or refuse to so attend or testify, or to answer any lawful inquiry, or to produce books or other documentary evidence, if in his power to do so, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars or more than five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment for not more than ninety days, or by both such fines and imprisonment.
It is clear from the above that the defendant would not be excused from attending and testifying before any court on the grounds that his action in relation to the liquor laws would tend to incriminate him, as immunity from prosecution, penalty or forfeiture as a result of such testimony is specifically prescribed by statute. The terms of the statute apply equally to an answer which would tend to incriminate as it does to "attending and testifying" , as we held in Bailey v. Muse, 227 Miss. 51, 69, 85 So. 2d 918, 924, (1956), a suit by the state tax collector to collect from the defendants statutory fines and penalties for unlawful sales of intoxicating liquors, as follows:
Of course if the chancellor, as here, requires an answer in full then under Code Section 2630 the defendant must so answer, but he is immune from assessment of the penalties and forfeitures insofar as the answer has
tended to incriminate him with respect to them.
We hold, therefore, that the defendant is required to answer the petition for discovery of assets and that he is granted immunity from prosecution as to any disclosures the answer might reveal with reference to violation of Mississippi Code Annotated chapter 3 Intoxicating Liquors (1956).
We voice no opinion as to the applicability of Mississippi Code sections 2612 and 2618 (credit or property rights in liquor) if in fact the answer discloses, as the motion indicates it will, that the monies and property sought to be recovered were actually used in illicit liquor business. This opinion is limited to the sole proposition that where immunity is granted by statute from prosecution a motion or plea based upon the constitutional right or privilege against self-incrimination is not well taken.
With deference to the trial judge we feel constrained to state that the Code section upon which this case turns was not presented to him and he had no opportunity to pass thereon.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
GILLESPIE, P.J., AND INZER, SMITH, AND ROBERTSON, JJ., CONCUR.
19661128
© 2000 VersusLaw Inc.