Case ID: ny-st-rep_60/html/0480-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Holly Manufacturing Company, Resp’t, v. Clarence H. Venner, App’lt.
    
    
      (Court of Appeals,
    
    
      Filed June 22, 1894.)
    
    Appeal—Judgment for contempt—When affirmed.
    Where the court of appeals cannot, on the evidence say that the defendant was not guilty of contempt, the judgment of the lower court will he affirmed.
    ■ Appeal from a judgment of the general term of the supreme court, first department, affirming an order adjudging defendant guilty of contempt for failing to produce certain books, pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum.
    
    
      Bronson Winthrop, for app’lt; David McClure, for resp’t.
    
      
       Affirming 57 St. Rep. 230.
    
   Per Curiam.

It was the province of the court below to determine the import and significance of the facts proved - in the proceeding to punish the appellant for contempt. We cannot say. that it was no.t permissible for the court to find that he had some complicity in the mysterious disappearance of the books about the same time in New York and Boston just when they were wanted. It is still open to him to relieve himself from punishment by more satisfactory proof of his good faith, and of his inability, without any fault on his part, to produce the books. The order should be ■■affirmed, with costs.

All concur.

Order affirmed.