Case ID: cal_72/html/0096-01.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. 11995.
    Department Two.
    February 22, 1887.]
    AUGUST HEILBRON et al., Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF TULARE COUNTY et al., Respondents.
    Contempt — Dismissal of Proceedings—Mandamus to- Compel Punishment. — Where a proceeding for an, alleged contempt in violating am injunction is dismissed by the Superior Court, on the ground that the party proceeded against is not guilty, a writ of mandate will not lie to review the order of dismissal, and to command the court to punish the party for the alleged contempt.
    Application for a writ of mandate. The contempt in question was alleged to consist in the violation of a judgment enjoining the Last Chance Water and Ditch Company from interfering with certain water rights belonging to the petitioners. The further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    
      Brown & Daggett, for Petitioners.
    
      Atwell & Bradley, for Respondents.
   The Court.

— Application for writ of mandate- to review order of above-named court dismissing a proceeding or contempt, and to command the court to- punish the party for the alleged contempt.

The court, after hearing the proceeding for contempt, dismissed it, in effect holding that the party proceeded against was not guilty.

It is clear to us that the court acted within its jurisdiction. It construed the judgment out of an alleged disobedience to which the proceeding for contempt had its origin, and must have held that the judgment was not, disobeyed. The court may have erred in its construction of the judgment, but that would he error which this court cannot pass on in this proceeding.

The application for the writ is denied and the proceeding dismissed. So> ordered.