Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/642

630 FBDBBAL BEPOBTEB. �may be committed till he answer3.(<) Where the court had no jarisdiction of the cause its order thereon is void, and disobedience to it is no contempt ;(m) so it is no offence to refuse to aiiswer in a proceeding before a justice who had no jurisdiction or right to subpœna a ■witness.(f) If the fine be not paid the party may be committed to pri8on(io) till the fine is paid(a;) at so much a da,y,{y) and the order need not recite the offence.(^) The court may malie a subsequent order fixing the amount of the line,(a) and it may fine a corpora- tion as well as its agents, (6) �In case of a contempt in the presence of the court, it may imprison, in its discretion, (c) or may commit the prisoner till the f urther order of the court •,(d) but a judgment or order that the prisoner stand committed till furfcher order of the court, for refusai to obey a previous order, is illegal and void;(e) so an order that he surrender books, etc., in bis hands as receiver to his suc- cessor is void.(/) Where imprisonment is designed only for a puuishment, it should be certain and for a deflnite period.(5') Courts may commit for a period beyond the term at which the contempt is committed, (^) vvhieh isa-distin- guishing feature between the power of courts and that of legislative bodies, whose powers cannot extend beyond the session. (i) Every court lias an inher- ent right to protect itself against a violation of its decency and propriety,(J) and an inherent power to punish fora contempt of its rules and orders;(ft) but where they act only ministerially they have no such power. (?) Justices of the peaee, acting judicially, have the same power as courts of record.(m) �Contempts in the presence of the court, and which may besumraarily dealt with, havetheir examples in the following instances: Any disrespect to the judge sitting in court, or any breach of order, decency, or decorum by any one �Tichbornev. Mostyn, LawRep.7 Eq. 55, n.; Reg. («) Hinckley t. Pirfenbrlnk, 96 111.53. �T. Castro, Law Rep. 9 Q. B. 219. As for vioiiition (,/) Hinckloy t. Pirfenbiii.k, 90 III. 63. �of aninjunction: Sickels v. Borden, 4 Blatchf. 14; (y) Buckley v.Com. 2 J. J. Marsh, 575; Com. v �Goodyear V. MUUee, B Blatchf. 463; Mnller v. Roberts, 2 Clnrk, (Pa.) 3i0; In re Grawford, 13 �Henry, 7 Law Hep. ?72; S. C. 6 Sawy. 464; Car- Adol. & E. 613; Rex t. James,6 Barn.S Ald.B94; �staedt V. U. S. Corset Co. 13 Blatchf. 371 ; Wor- Hiiicklcy v. Pirfenbriak, 96 III. 68. �cester v. Truman, 1 McLean, 483. (A) Ex parte Haulsby, 13 Md. 642. �(t) Lott T. Burrell, 2 Const. Ct. 167; People T. (i) Anderson v. Dutin, 6 Wheat. 2!'4 ; Ex parte �Fancher, 4 Thomp. & C. 467. Miiulsby, 13 Md. 642; Ex parte Niigent, 7 Pa I,. �(«) People T. Sturtevant, 5 Seld. 263. See Peo- J. 107; Heg. v. Faty, 2 Ld. Haym 1105; Crosby's �pie V. O'NeilI, 47 Cal. 109; Rex V. Clement, 4 Case, 3 Wils. 204. �Earn. & Mi. 218 ; Sparks T. Martin, Vent. 1. U) State v. Tlpton, 1 Blackf. 166 ; Kernodle t. �(ii)In re Mortou, 10 Mich. 208. See Bear v. Cason, 25 Ind. 362; Ex ptirte Smith, 28 Ind. 47; �Cohen, 65 N. C. 611; Rutherford T. Holmes, 6 Redman v. State, Id. 205: Whttten v. State, 36 �Hun. 317. Ind. 196; Brown V. Brown, 4Ind 627. �(w) People V. Bennett, 4 Paige, 282. (*) See Desty, Crim. Law, S 73a, note 7, 73d; �Cx) Eischer v. Hityes, ll>2 U. S. 121; S. C. 6 FeJ. and iorconstructive contempts see [d.7Ja, noteS, �Rep. 63;. Ex parte Crittenden, 7 Pac. C. L. J.483. (i) Clark v. People, 1 Breese, 266; Gorham v. �(y) Ex parte Crittenden, 7 Pac. C. L. J. 483. Lockett, 6 B. Mon. 638; Ex parte Smith, 28 Ind. �(i)Fj8Cher v.Hayes, 102U.S. 121; S. 0.6 Fed. 47; and see People v. Tiirner, 1 Cal. 152; Watson �Kep. 63. V. Williams, 36 Miss. 331 ; In re Moore, 63 N. C. �(o)FischerT. Hayes, 102U. S. 121; S. C. 6Fed. 397; Stuart v. People, 3 Scam. 395. �Rep. 63. (m) Murphy v. WilBon, 46 Ind. 537; Brown v. �(J)U. S. S. Express Co. v. Memphis & Llttle R. leople, 19 111. 613; Robin^n v. Hnrlan,2111.23/'; �R. Co. 6 Fed. Rep. 237. Tindall v. Meeker, Id. 137; Bowers v. Green, Id. �(c) Middlebrook v. State, 43 Conn. 257. 42. See Rex T. Robinson, 2 Bnrr. 799; but see �(ii)Yate8' Case, 4 Johns. 3VJ; Williamson'a Hhinehart v. Lantz, 4 N. J. L. J. 23'>; Lampher T. �Case, 86 Pa, St. 24; Tome's Appeal, 66 Pa. St. 285. Eewell, 9 N. W. Rep. 101. Contra, In re Alexander, 2 Am. L. Reg. 44; 9 R. I. 248. ��� �