Case ID: cal_70/html/0636-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 20235.
    In Bank.
    September 15, 1886.]
    Ex Parte FRANK JAYNES, on Habeas Corpus.
    Contempt—Refusal of Telegraph Employee to Produce Messages-— Subpcena Duces Tecum. — An employee of a telegraph company, having charge of messages transmitted by it. is not guilty of contempt for refusing to obey a subpcena duces temrrri,-ommanding him to search for and produce all messages from and to a large number of persons therein named, between specified dates. The subpoena must identify the particular messages required.
    Application for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner is an employee of the Western Union Telegraph Company, having charge of all telegrams transmitted from or received at the offices of the company in the cities of 8an Francisco and Oakland, and the town of San Rafael, in the state of California. On the 3d of February, 1886, a subpcena duces tecum was regularly issued out of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, in an action there pending, commanding him to search for and produce any and all telegrams transmitted to or from such places by a large number of persons therein named, between specified dates. This the petitioner refused to do unless the particular messages sought were identified. For his refusal, he was adjudged guilty of contempt of court, and committed to jail. The further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    
      P. G. Galpin, for Petitioner.
   The Court.

The petitioner was served with subpoena duces tecum, requiring him to produce telegraphic messages, but there was nothing to point his attention to any particular message or messages; he was required to search for and produce all messages from a number of persons to many other persons between certain specified dates. The service of the subpoena was an evident search after testimony. The petitioner was not bound to respond, and committed no contempt in failing to examine the papers under his control, to ascertain if any such messages had been sent or received.

The petitioner is discharged.