New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-06-26

Statutes u. 26 and under the iih subdivision of the
10th section. The Coroner had certified 70 the Court
the Of the ressters their sers and abettors TO
the end that they might be proceeded sgsns. or their
contempt pursuant 10 section Isl leo OF H. 3, al
| distinction Is made between proceedings IN such q
case ard those under the title proceedings FOX COZ
temp,s to enforce civil remedies = X. s, 52i. The
an con Of the statute first referred TO 2 X. s.
rs provides that nothing in the preceding sections
shall Be construed 10 extend 20 any proceeding against
psltes officers for contempt for the purpose ot
enforcing any civil right or remedy and prcceedines
under the latter set il il essentis 10 the infection OF
punishment that tAe Court sAsl sdedge the act to
have impaired, defeated or Prjudieed the rights or
remedies Of party. This dstisction - referred To by
Mr.. Justice B0sworth in tie Of the People ACT
| Compton = Duer SIS and tie case Of Adams sgt.
Dancer, Brad and Bin-., -, is an example OF II
Sherifis officer served the defendant With copy Of
clPs' showed him the original aud explained the OBJ
jeot. The Gefendan, coarei hiu and ordered hin 10
quit his presence. On moving for attachment for
contempt of the process, the counsel va, desired 10
obtain affidavit, pointing on. more fully IN what
respect and TO what degree the act of violence OBJ
srueed the due execution Of the process OF the Court
On another day, nothing being acdei the Coart sac
they would lay down no rule whether every cOlagng
and shaking officer would or wOut not be deemed
contempt of the Court but il sUaced 10 say that
no case wss here made which disclosed any such OBJ
structen Of their process as to require ths summary
mode Of punishment The 18th section OF the statate
y K. s., Ri directs that in where Il" contempt
is not committed in the presence of the Court the
party charged shall be notified Of the accusation and
have reasonable time 10 make his defense LUIS va,
given b. the order To show cause.
The counsel for the defendant insists that the >ase IL
not within the provision Of the statute that the order
process must be served before the case OF resistance
can arise. think not. In my opinion, when psrty
knows of the existence OF order in the hands o an
officer 10 be served upon him. and willtuly prevents
that service by open force made directed the resist
anCe ~ as fully within the statute, "a II ne hau ~
ceiv,d and condemned il. In the Commonwealth agt.
Feey 2 Reg. Cases b, Feey was punished as FOR u
CONTEMPT FOR usrs means 10 prevent one Wright from
attending a witness 10 prove deed executed by
him Feely, after subpoena had been served upon
Wright. And the Practical Register defines q con-
tempt TO be "a dsobedence to the Court or an OPP
posing order despsing the authority, justice and
4" dignity thereof Sometimes it arises from one or
more opposing and disturbing the execution or ser
"vice Of the process of the Court or using force to
the party that serves IT," Prsc Reg, 80 100 See
also Gilbers History of the Common Pleas, 20, Il,
for an account of the origin of the power, and the
reasons why trial by jury in such cases is not
right.
The aiidavts the part of the defendant have
made out a case generating him from either the act
Of resistance the intention TO resist His own oath
h corroborated by that of butcher that no communi-
cation Of the fact that the Coroner had process To
serve upon him was made to him. The inquiry, and
the only pertinent inquiry is whether the defendant
knew oi the Coroner having an order to serve upon
hin, whether there are facts enough deposed 10 TO
make him chargeabe with such knowledge. In this
view butcher IL cOntradicted by Perry as TO the an
nouncemen of his possessing writ and his Intention
10 serve it. But butcher cannot be contradlced by
IelfN as 10 tne OllrsoH 10 dppISc w
that fact It might tend to render his statement
doubtful az TO the one fact il he was not TO be be-
leved to the other, and with oath against OATH
might be warranted IN making further inquiry But
still the question would remain upon the defendants
affidavit contradicted and apparently not capable
Of being contradcted That Is also collateraly sus-
tanned BY the proof OF his sending for the Coroner In
order 10 submit TO the service after some Information
subsequently reaching him that the Coroner had
writ.
have come To the conclusion that in such case,
when tie Court is satisfied that no conumacy OF its
order took place, and the papers before 1t make
this out free from doubt, further investigation ID not
allowable. Every Court s the judge whether con-
tempt has been committed against il or not Cowen,
so; IS Priest 20, q b. CIawiords case. 10 queen
Bench Rep. 6l3l. In The People agt. Tew, John
Rep 2O9 an order 10 show cause why an attachment
should not issue had been granted. II was for I'M
proper and dsrespecful publications during SUIT.
i'pon afdavts the Court refused the rule The
issuing Of an attachment is always matter of d:cre-
ton in the Court and under the circumstances OF the
case public Justice does not require our nterPosion,
though we may condemn the publication IN question:
In jackson agt Smith, Johns. Rep, III, the Court
ssy that the to nterrogatOrIes show that
no contempt has been committed the party - entitled
10 his discharge; but If Il be admitted the court wiz
proceed to pronounce such judgment ~ the clrcum-
stances If the may require The hadlng case OF
The People sgt. Freer Gainess Reports, 10 to oio,
is example also CT the determination OF the ques,
ton upon aiidavts. To the like eject are seVerai
cases well under our own statute when ,he pro-
eeeding protect civil remedies rs in England I'M
der the general power ola Cont Albany City Bank
sgt SeLernerhorp 9 Paige, rs; Matter OF Wander.
bilt, John: Oh. 81 Blake sgt DArsy, 2-'hpS, ana
several cases cited in Leohmere, Charlton. case
Mylne & Craig, 3iOl. The rule deduci6e from tue
authorities il this That in proceeding like the pres
e1t il IL The satisfaction Of the offended dignity OF the
law and vindcaon of the respect due 10 Tribunals OF
Justice which calls for interposton and punishment
The Count which is alleged 10 have been insued, IL
the Judge of what is due itself and 20 the c9use oil
public Justice. IT, upon the presented, 1t can
not hesitatef there il no room Judicauy speaking,
for doubt upon the facs-f, upon that case, jury
could but 10 conclusion, then there u nener
precedent justice in protract!ng the inquiry, upon
The suggestion that seYsTe sxamnenon may contra
dict what is now established, render doubtful what
il now clear My conclusion is that the order 10 snow
cause must be discharged. Ii is not case Tor COSTS
Judge Dean submitted an order which he bad drawn
in anticipation of this decision, but Mr. Fled objected
to s phraseology as reced Of the contents OF
the eifdayits of the Mayor and others. The Couh
directed that the order b. amended 10 read as
follows:
a Special Tern Of the Superior Court held At the City Of
New.YorE the IS h day of June ls5 Present ia
p,"i,i d q poyer ait Fernando Wood 1npleaded, &c.
An order having been heretofore granted, reqnr-
j. the defendant Fernando Wood to show cause be-
fne murray Hoffman, one OF the Justices OF I'M;
Court On tie sd dGy OF JuEe instant why he siuu
not be pun ,hates Tor a contsmpt tor having wbi1ly
resisted tho seSce upon him o. Lswtul order "a pro-
cess Of tbs Court N this aet'on asd the SAID ceiehd
ant having appeared on sid order 10 show cause and
made 70 All aud fled his affidavit, aud having
read ana fled the AFFIDAVIT OF James u "I.ett ana
twenty three otLers and after bearing Mr. fleid the
course for the rainti and Mr.. Dean for the defend
ant-iss ordered that aid ORDER to show cause De- and
INT sc R tSe - MURRAY HOFFMAN"
-
A rg- &C