The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-02-04

viduals-drectors oil q coporatiOn-for the violation
OF corporate duty; but have found no indictment
against, had my attention drawn to any instance
OF the punishment OF corporation in its corporate
capacity On this point | wish particularly to call
the attention Of the Court to the case OF The King
Holland, ) Term, K. COZ and 622, and also to the
Of Kane vs.. The People, Wendell, p 203, 2O9.
We suppose that the punishment and the proceedings
in this case depend upon the same principle as they
do in proceeding criminally against party by the
remedy of Indictment. The Court will also find, by
reference to the statute what is their duty and what
the duties Of parties in reference to the process
Of the Court; and perhaps it may he well for me- in
this connection to call the attention Of the Court
for single moment to them. The Code, at section
21S provides for the issuing of injunction order by
Judge, and for its enforcement an order of the
Court There are various provisions of the Revised
Statutes which are cited upon the points to the
mode Of punishment, the extent of fine and i'm
prisonment, the length of Imprisonment and
the amount Of the fine but 1t is not necessa-
ry particularly that ] should refer to them.
r. 5. 34, l. sub. g. s, Fl, 22 Is, and &c, relate
to the amount of the fine and the length of imprison
men II will be sufficient for US, we suppose, in
this case, If we had nothing but the code and the
provisions of the Revised Statutes and this njunc
ton in the precise language in which it IL issued.
We suppose, in its terms, it reaches these parties;
but whether it does not, the Corporation aud its
agents, attorneys, and officers and all persons who
shall act and must act for the Corporation, were
joined by thi order not to do certain thing. That
injunction was obtained in the mode pointed out by
the CODE by an order Of the Judge which became an
order OF the Court and which is to be enforced as
such. The statute provides the mode In which it
shall he enforced; and Independent Of the other au
thorities and provisions to which have referred we
suppose upon the code and statute itself that we shall
be entitled to the punishment Of these parties There
are various other references upon these points-see
Backstone-whjch il Is not necessary to refer TO
also in Angel & Ames on Corp, 6Sl. believe
gave the Court a reference, or should have done
so, to the case Of Fitzherbet, under the third
subdivision, page 234, as to the proper mode
Of directing writ TO a corporation, and
che proper mode Of enforcing obedience TO
H. That was case which seems to bear some
resemblance 10 this in one particular. 1t was a
writ nc aoUcndo feproso directed to the Mayor and
bluyesses Of the city Of London, to remove leper
and on the refusal ofthe Mayor whose public duty
was to do 1.-THE writ being addre ssed to the whole
Corporaion-an attachment was granted against
tie Mayor. In the general fordy made upon the
Latin language under the supervision Of one OF tie
gentlemen opon the other side, this writ has been
abolished; and while that may lie reform under
some Circumstances, it is peculiarly unfortunate in
THIS Gaze for II such process eol be put 10 opera
uon here, i would 60 great way 10 prevent r.
peuuon OF the Inconvenience Gf which we are COM.
planning. Wy these cases, therefore, and by the ain
thoriies cited IN support Of them, we suppose that
me nth proposition follows. When any one nst5 IN
an Official character in dieregardiBg an injunction or
order OF Tie court il is not she officer Dpt the ndivs
doali whc = punished loI the contempt. Ana we