Pioche daily record. [volume] (Pioche, Nev.) 1872-1876, 1876-08-20

The State Supreme Court has rem
dered decision in the appeal Of the case
of A. W. Maxwell and the Meadow Val
ley Mining Company. The following
are the facts as set forth in the decision:
The Meadow Valley Mining Company
sued the petitioner to recover lot of crude
silver bullion valued at $4,000, and be
was subsequently indicted by the grand
Jury OF Lincoln county for the larceny OF
the same bullion. Both cases were set
for trial on the same day-October IA.
lS15-the trial OF the criminal case to
take precedence. On the 4th of October
the attorney of the Meadow Valley Com
pany gave notice that he would take the
deposition OF Maxwell in the civil case
before the respondent, the District Judge,
on the 9Th OF October. and at the same
time filed and served the ordinary sffi-
dsvit for taking the deposition of party
to an action. The petitioner being con-
fined in the County Jail under the in
dictment for larceny. the respondent, as
District Judge, ordered the Sheriff to
bring him into open Court for the pur.
pose of giving the deposition, and 10
compliance with that order the Sheriff
produced him in Court on the 9th of o.
tooer, and he was sworn as witness
He was then asked a number of ques-
tons. some Of which be answered and
some of which he declined to answer.
Those which be declined to answer were
all addressed to the same point and
amounted in effect to this: " How did
YOU become possessed OF that bullion?"
The grounds specified for his refusal to
answer we're various, but are all COM
prised under these heads: First-Tbe
proceeding TO take his deposition was
not authorized by law; and. second-to
answer would expose his defense to the
criminal charge upon which he was
about to be tried and SO give the State an
undue advantage over him. The Court
overruled these objections and found him
guilty OF contempt for every question he
refused to answer-ten in all--and i'm
posed ten fines, amounting in the aggre-
gate TO $4,250. The Cour. also struck
out his answer in the case. After an at
tempted trial of the criminal case, in
which the jury disagreed, the petitioner,
through his counsel, offered to answer
the questions which he had before re-
fused to answer, and thereupon moved
the Court to vacate the orders fning him
for contempt, and to reinstate his
answer. These motions were overruled.
10 the appeal Maxwell is the petitioner
and Judge Rives the respondent. The
question OF issue is the power and limit
Of jurisdiction in the matter of contempt.
Judge Beatty says:
1t is the manifest purpose o! the stat.
ute to limit the amount of the fine to be-
imposed for any one contempt OF Court
to the sum OF FIVE hundred doilars-a
purpose that would be completely frus-
trated If the Court, by repeating or null
tiplying questions. could multiply con-
tempts. The District Judge erred in
finding that each separate refusal to an
swer question was distinct contempt,
and in imposing fines which 10 the ag.
gregate exceeded five hundred dollars be
exceeded bis jurisdiction. think his
order should BE- modified by RENTING all
OF the fine in excess of five hundred dol
lars. and the petitioner should have
judgment for his costs.
Judge Hawley says:
l am of opinion that in refusing to
answer the various questions PROFOUND.
ed to him GALL being addressed to the
same point, the petitioner was guilty of
but one contempt. and that the Court
had Jurisdiction to impose but one sent
ence
Now if there was but one contempt,
think there could be but one valid sent
ence. aud that when the Court adjudged
petitioner guilty of contempt and ordered
him to pay a fine of fifty dollars, it ex-
hausted its jurisdiction and had no fur
Their power in the premises. The subse.
quent orders were. in my judgment, en-.
tlrely null and void.
Judge EARL concurs in the modified
judgment of Chief Justice Hawley.