New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-07-30

RELIEF FROM CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS.
yi.p6r wrsTBRooX's VIEWS on THE TWEED De
CrsION-ANEoy JACOBS DISCHARGED ON THE
GROUND or EXCESSIVE PUNISHMENT, IN AC-
CpKD,NCE WITH THE OPINION OF JUDGE
GROVER.
Judge WestbroOk. in Supreme Court, Cham
bers yesterday rendered his decision in the matter OF
Aaron Jacobs, the facts vi which nave been repori"
already ia TIE TRIBUNE. Jacobs was cOllnllted ny
Judge Freedman FOR contempt until lie should pay hne
which included a counsel fec 10 his opponents lawyer
The two questions presented to Judge WestbrOOk were
whether be could review on habeas corpus commitment
for contempt by Judge OF tho superior Court ana
whether a counsel fee could be included in the line in
contempt proceeding. The following Is the substance VI
his opinion:
On Dee 90 1874 the relator Aaron Jacobs, was com
mitted The jail of thc iity and county o1 New
York the pace Cf 30 days, md until re should pay me
Of @2lO ~ imposed upon nm ~ ' ounrIoI '0l' VI
the city OF NewYork for an alleged contempt re re-
lator having been brought before the Court upon VIII
OF haes corpus. upon the return thereto by the sheriff.
showing that Jacob, held by virtue OF cOuuhthe
issued b. the superior Court for contempt therein
charged for his discharge. upon the ground mat
the punishment inflicted was III excess oil the lo"er Oh
the Court impose. The counsel Tor the persons VINO
oppose tho discharge insists that ~ IL appears he said
Jacobs IL held Tor c"ntelnpt specially ana llilhy
but must be reanded forthwith II il not TO be denied
that Iabeas Corpu. act. section 3D. IN pam woiuS
the writ is rctuinable forthwith TO remand such
party II Ii shall appear that he IL detained IN custody
competent OF ciy criminal jurisdiction, " OF
any execution issued upon such judgment or decree or
for any contempt specially and plainly charged In the
commitment by some Court, oihcer or D0dy haslhg
authority 10 commit the contempt charged II is
also true that another section Of the H1beaS Corpus act
Section 81. declares, hut Court officer on the
turn any habels corpus certiOr ISSUED under this
article shall have power 10 inquire INTO the legality OF
Justice of any process Judgment decree, or execution
specified rhe preceding 22d Section nor into the Justice
proprioty of any commitment for contempt made 10y
any officer body according To law, and charged
III such commitment a. hcroinbcfOrc PROVIDED
In obedience o the plain language Of our statutes as
supposed in People rel. Phelps aGt Fancher and IN
People az rel VIM NJ Tweed agt. LisoOmb, cOncurIci
In holding that neither the justice propriety OF any
commitment for contempt" the legality or justice
OF Judgment" by or of competent Court could be
questioned in proceeding OF this character. 1iy own
views OF these statutes fully given In the To
which have referred and should follow the inclina
tons VI my Judgment should hold tnless section
% Of the act regulating the conduct Of the Court or oil
where the party Is confined by civil process appcsl
that there power In this Court this proceeding Ia
review tho action of tho superior Court IN TINS matter.
Ny convictions cannot, however, prevail. ! un-
derstand the Court Of Appeals 10 have recently
hold In the Tweed case that when the Judg
ment under which the party is held Was
In Of the power OF the Court to award, II Is RENE
dabe by this writ That Ia Ia say though the Court pro
nouncing the judgment has held II had the power To pro-
IT, the party claiming 10 TO he illegal need not re-
to witt OF error 70 correct or reverse IT, but may
apply for the writ any Court officer empow cred to
grant it and II such Court officer land II maj hc
county judge or special eonnt iudge) aUudseS that