The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1866-08-14
THE PERCY CONTEMPT CASE.
COURT OF COMMON plEAs-spsclAl TERM.

Decision Of Judge DAILY Right Of Court to
Rcyiew-Percy demanded.
Before Judge DAILY.
AUGUST 13.--fn The matter Of John Percy j5r conempG-
This morning Judge DAILY rendered the following decision
In the Percy contempt case and in accordance Herewith
the prisoner remanded:- tsr8a,3f0
II Is declared by that II It appear by che return
writ of abeas corpus that the party suing the
writ is in custody for any contempt specially and
plainly charged in the commitment by court officer
Or body having authority .a 70 commit for contempt 90
atey remand the party Rev Stat SGT; p. 40. And IL
is further provided that court or o6cer shall have
Commitment for acontcmpt made by any court Officer or
body according to law and charged in such commitment
Id A. The return shows that Percy detained In the
Justice Barnard in the Supreme Court imposing fine
Of 5000 for behavior on the part Of Percy in the mme
its proceedings and impair the respect due its auhor
ty. The order in compliance with the statute,
Of the offence and directs that Percy stands
committed until the fine Is paid for period not
ing thirty days; and all this appears upon the face Of
the RETURN my plain duty as II appears to me- is to
mand him. My inquiry is limited by statute to two
points First-Is the contempt specially and plainly
charged in the comm.ncutf Second-Had the officer
authority to tcnm for the contempt which is charged9
In respect the rst the circumstances forth
the order Of commitment and they amount to crmi-
nal contempt rs the offence IL defined by the Revised
second Justice Of the Supreme Court has authority to
u
is commitment in this case: that Percy is held
under an order Of the court, and that the statute
therefore is inappi'cabe. Courts of record how.
ever, might always commit for contempt by an
order was decided in the OF the People VS. New
ns Hill, 154l that this power not only not taken
away by the Revised statute but that it was distinctly
cognzed by the provision therein enacted upon the
subject Of contempts Who're the Court therefore, mako
an order that party be com m tied for CONTEMPT
committed in the presence of the Cour-he order is
all the purposes Of the statute be regarded as com.
mi'ment The People VS. Novins, subpoena, p III.
that when al order OF is made the party stands
committed for contempt il lie apparent from process;
pronounced he is instantya prisoner and the warden
may take him sway to Jail dsccv, and the same
effect Mayhcw vs. Locke, Marsh, $50 per Gibbs J:
Taylor vs. Beale, ld =: $50. The statute
declares that tho punishment for a Grim
BY fine BY Imprisonment: IN the jail Of the county
where the court sitting, both, in the discretion of
the court and It is therefore objected that the
not state by whom Is to be carried into effect de-
clare where Percy Is ODE imprisoned II decided
in Russell Hubbard, Barb 854, that a warrant Of
ton for petit larceny was void which was not directed
to any officer class or officers person authorized
execute It, and that II Afforded no protection TO the
stable who actually executed II. ay, therefore, be
doubted whether inc order made by the Court in this
case should not have directed the sheriff take the
iator and confne him in the jail Of the county th,,ty
days or until he paid the fine; but the pc mt Is that
is not necessary for me to upon, for
in this respect IL would not avail the rclaior
upon writ OF habeas corpus for the statute
declares Rev stat p $685. A. A. that # It appear
upon the hoariug thu, the party guilty OF Grimm al
onencc The Court officer before whom he Is brought
shall remand INN, IL the offence IS not baabIe to the
custody Of the occr person by law entitled thereto,
even though the commitment irregular And this
was the rule Of tnc common law the practice being
the commitment was defective 10 finally discharge the
prisoner from the imprisonment and then recomm him
for the offence. The King Marks East r. 166
The conempt appearing here upon the iacc OF the
turn by statute declared TO be criminal offence,
Rev. STAT pp 27s. 2y9 TO- IT, and being adjuca
ton and conviction for criminal contempt It not bail
able, Potersdorf on Bait y. He must be remandedt 20
the custody Of the sheriff and seek his remedy by
appeal ~. -. defect in the OFFER On commitment,
IN case ike tuts no ground
dischargc upon habeas corpus. tBcheis Case SACK
54sl The last objection msde Is that does appear
that any inierrogatons wore propoundcd. TINS also
matter that cannot be inquired into with habeas corpus
Where the order is which court have authority
to make all jurisdctonal steps and or regular
ity are TO be presumed contrary doctrine says Cow
AM in People va Nevins Subpoena, would turn habeas
corpus into writ Of 10 revise tho proceednes OF
court. may be remarked however that the Profound
ing u nterrogatons not necessary whore the
tempt 10 committed into view and presence Of thu court
The court takes Judicial notice Of the fact and the con
yiction and punishment Is summary. e Rev. Stat 27s
sec IL Pitt vs. Davidson. ~ Barb III Percy must
therefore, DO rernanded.