New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-03-02


I've, bss ne ene ard ex pens be ped tse the
dee,e,on Il made This iInpnsoarneut for resonace
e In vbieh he misconduct slled H. excsp.
in the cases specified IN o. In that Glaze Of esss
the msoo nduct or dsobedenee CONSIST in not having
sced at an ia ell Others in having acu'uay done sbns-
thinr prohibited 1, may be thought singular tlat n tie
ae II criminal Contempt and 10 puaishinE a. g1eh fhs
cow 20 ifgprson should be restricted h.y days AID
hat IN proceeding 10 punish for oo'tsn p injuries -
cv rsh tie power to imP:p 0T ioasf :, pss ns1
.o,s, 10 sections Is Is Of X s., 553) maze his CON
,n,pt In of criminal Contempt by sec ~ titie
~ chap OF this part the prisonn1 nti limited - tTty
Ssys PERHAPS there be weIe longer impr son
%ent Tor III uries civil rights QUILT 70 os alowe9
r~,e three socon. enacted 10 the form watch
,hsy were proposed @ r. s. 773 ID edl IT, then hne
nav be imposed a. punlhment where no actual loss hs
80 occasioBed by the dsObedeEce Of imprisonment MT
,ceedrg ak months may be ordered with the same view
;fthe ia rsonaeut when ordered Is 70 be- 'or oay ara
.n.ble perod t is obvious that principle exists by
b;,h III Court ought % DC guided discriminating be-
and BY which N sIne cssesii sy properly uue
60, M sO while In otheIgthe 6pe hJ1la be nom
ia univ and bywhich determine whether inprsou
nent should he ordered a. pur isknen aud wha. term
would Be taonabe period in sny pticolzr case TIE re-
orted cases STOW that Couts have regarded a. free from
Doubt that the nature OF the dsobedence az whether was
wfu otherwise one OF the matters 70 be REGARDED
In Oct mining whether and what punishment should
te nnet beyond the impos ton 81 hae sltcient to
Indemnify injured party for BIS loss and 70 s2tsy his
expenss In Hswley VS. Berne't, a. page el the Cam
osOr said that far the nights oil party have been
aeced by the breach Of nurciOD, It no defense 20
the person WHO has been guilty Of yolns me sane, tsst
h did IL under the advice OF counsel. although II he has
,eed In GOOD fifth il may lie sufficient protect h from
punishment for criminal contempt la R0yers IN
PstersOn ca 40 the Chancellor rsstlted the principle
thus And the advice OF counsel cannot protect party
dsDbeyiDg order Of the Court 80 a5t peyent tue
,dysd party whose remedy simpared OF by such
dsobedence from taking the ssGry steps TO compeie
compliance with the order although the fact that the party
las aced IN rood ah and under the ADVICE Of his COUNSEL
sy be sufcitDt prevent the imposition Of fine, be
yopd actual amount of the injury sustained by the ad
party and the necessary expenses Of toe proceed
ings" In sullivan nD Judah 4, ed a. he SAID In this
ease is evident the complainant has sustained injury
BY the proceedings Of the defendants although they have
proceeded In dir ct opposition to the Injunction. And the
excuse offered by them sufficient to prevent the impos
ton ofany Considerable fine punishment for cone inning
$751; he remarked that The fact that the defendants scted
under the accommodation Of counsel 10 whom they APP
pied for information how they could eude tie justice OF
this court and at the same time avoid punishment for
breach Of tie injunction cannot protect them from fine
sufficient 70 compensate the advised parties Tor the injury
they have sustained by the wrongful complained or
though furnish ground justify the court 10 rsfu
sing infct further punishment upon the offenders for
violation OF its order" Ia the Albany City Bank Sc her
me page $40 in which the Chancellor appeal re-
yssed Vice Cbsuceos order adadgng parties guilty
contempt be stated that order should rect
~ whom the fine il be- paid what be done with
such fine wien paid Set that the order and the process
tie coDvic 0n, and what the deponent is to do. to
snte binfelf 10 discharge from mprsOnment" In the
People eL rel Backus Va spadng TO- Si tho report
ofthe shows that Spaldng had beeu convicted by
chancellor OF wilfu breach Of injunction issued,
upon aerediton bin fled against bin After he had been
committed ne was by Supreme Court Com MIS-
ediDgs under ahdbeds c0Pas Tue Vice Chan
eeloI made an order for ecommitment, the ground
oder his discharge. From the ordcr recOmnitting him,
Spsding appealed to the cb1nc llor who affirmed the
oder An appeal taken to the the correction
Of errors That court affirmed the Judgment OF the chan
cslor Chief Justice Neson, in delivering the opinion Of
the court remarked that the for which the appellant
he'd thus been adudsed guilty IS criminal offence under
the revised statues and before the common law
sbjecns the offender TO Indictment aud on conviction,
Bl Comm, I2g" In oases confcssedy criminal
and indctabIe. the penalties for which would OF.
dbay for the benefit OF the people, the Cou Is
hOrzed impose nne WIN u the Indemnity
the party aegieved his accep ance Of being declared
br TO any private on for tie injury The fine however,
no lees penalty for criminal act If inflicted for the
benefit OF the people but the imposition Of u in the
prescribed psbes the double purpose Of punishment
s lbe on the one hand aud Indemnify to the
Rgneyed party on the other & ILL., SOl In that case
the Court below hdudged that actna loss had been
by the dsobeience and although the ports of te
show that he fined for the tempt the amount
500 and the costs ant expenses IN relation 70 to the
how much due the Judgment which the creditors
bull was hed The order OF convection directed the costs 70
paid the CLERK OF the Court subject 10 the farther order
ofthe Court. How, $. r. (U.S ~ In tnat Spal
ding adUdged on the 2ls Of ac 1872 70 have wiiuy
yosec the injunction On the It'll OF May, 1872 he ws ar
ested on an alas riemns a11 continued utdr arrest an
vi the 18th of September following when he was dis.
charged by tho supreme Court commission on the srend
that dschaIee IN bankptcy granted oa the ftn OF sep
TENDER, relieved him from tie fine costs sud exp nses
which he had been ordered 10 pay In tue Court tor the
correction OF ErroIs II eouendco on behalf Spad'
imposed bong under the reversed ltutss pr0yd ng
enforcement OF civil remedies should though N form GRIM
the ceb claimed in the chonccy suit aud upon which hey
had been founded that the fine IA fact imposed for
the purpose OF being applied TO me on tne
debt whenever IN The progress OF the su sho9ld nave
been essbs but that II was Incidental TO The debt ana
dependant upon IT. and that dsctas OF tie one must ne
cesary discharge the other q HUI 52 S3l II was IN
10 this argument that the remarks OF thet justice
Nelson above quoted, were made The question was not
presented any stion made by the Court,
in TcstiOn TO the point, whether, IN any case in-
pionmen might properly bo Ordce ell az an shen 10 adj
aton the imposition Of fine whether line could
lf
imposed to identify against actual loss Section Is
exrressod that ne ma, be imposed not exceeding t2so
and above the and expenses OF the possedngs
Ia hoe where no actual loss as Occasioaed by
the disobedionco. such hne lnpos d. lus necessarily
be inn Osed merely as punsncnt aud not as an indeui
IT, when paid goes the benefit OF the pubdc aud not
TO the complaining patty Macy vs. Jordan inL 9O'
appeal g. the court OF last TosoI tom an al0dics-
ton OF the Chancellor Macy hgd vbny violated a. IN
junction issued editor bl sled AZ s h'p aud hnt
u, The tic Esd at No
venber I9sa On the 5h OF Dscenlbef following MseeyN VI
sateG H. hy nlakina an gnnsent OF Improperly AngoS
g. islz ne YVES disohsrged under tbs banSrpI act IN
October 1919 an attachment Wa applied ioi over ya
ahrr obtaining his discharge IN ban ~, b - az
violation of the injunction. In MarVh lsii' nc was "a
indeed euii of tie contempt alleged 10 awe been coh-
nrtted IN December 1886, some Ssr years PRIOR 70 tus
issuing the attachment Justice Je"e't IN tne epipn
deyrred bv hirn reISks that the cause ior whoh .e
tine Was imposed the criminal contempt w',on tas
appellant was adjudgcd 10 cave ,an''eo w Nos.Ns .S
ib}rnc,,on CAR 3 Z7S QiO) Tne Puuish@ent 'og s1ch
"a by fne or imprisonment OF 1o'l ecvo,& 20
the sgsrNvauOn OF the case and where Pst nas sl
frrsd by the misconduct which conCs te ouonse' tne
tine is 10 be paid 10 such party t3R ; SS 9-Vio - IL
NAV he ue that il she debt has been paid sn seQuenty 10
the violation of the iniunc aon UuiisAacu " only
nominal tine could have been inn osro' " Inc pro
reedns alter the attachment lssUcd w 10y oiunA o.
tense spd although the respondent lst incidentally de-
rive q heuet from the conviction, stu the proceed
Ing. was not upou the original demand, or iof
the recovery OF . debt" fbe Judgment OF the chan
ceor was affirmed by vote Of Y 10 , The views ex-
prsssd of these prooecdss IN the cases referred TO- 90 not
necessarily conflict intimate any Interpretation OF rue
statute Al variance with the culinary and natural meaning
Of It's terms each opinion cited sfsad a. al OPINIONS
should be- with reference TO the particular facts OF the case
OF the statute that tue dsoOedence OF an or
der NAV have heen wul t'st II may nave arisen from
an homes; isapprcheuson by the offending party OF she
nature the which he did ana may have occurred IN
good faith and ~ the belief that was 10 dlsooedlene
That such case actual loss results nom the sOecdl-
ence the Court hss discretion Which VIII ahsolve II noun
nposne ue which will indemnify tie injured party for
the loss That in such hno should be imposed or
imprisonment ordered purely aad soey as punishment
heyond tho punishment that may rs1 from The import
OF tine sufficient TO nden'aiy AGAINST the setasi