The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1891-04-01
WIDBER IN CONTEMPT.
He Must Pay Judge TrOutt's Bill
or Go to Jail.

Treasurer Widber's refusal to pay the
bill incurred by the Sheriff in fitting up
Judge Troutt's courtroom and chambers
resulted yesterday afternoon in an order
issued by Judge Wallace adiudging him
guilty Of contempt and committing him to
Jail for one hour, or until the bill is paid.
This case is really not as serious as it looks
on its face. 1t is simply prosecuted to test
that manner of making drafts on the Cen
eral Fund, and the order adjudging the
Treasurer guilty of contempt and commit
ting him is simply one of form, so that 1t
may b. taken to the Supreme Court on ha-
qeas corpus, and the test COMPLETED.
The only question raised was as TO the
construction OF the law that empowers
Judges to incur such bills and whether
proceeding in contempt is the proper course
to enforce payment or should 1t be by man
damus proceedings
County Attorney burst argued from the
standpoint that il is the duty Of tie Judge to
first notify the Super visors Of bis needs,
and if that body refused or neglected to pro-
vide them, then proceed us the statute Ill
rected by ordering the Sheriff to do the work
and issuing an ORDER on the treasurer lor
payment
The inherent Constitutional power of the
court to proceed in all such cases was adj
mitted by the counsel. but since the LeglS-
lnture has assumed to prescribe reasonable
restrictions such statute would seem 10 De
qualification of that power. The statute
says: IF the Board of Supervisors refuse
or neglect TO provide suitable eOnyenienees
for holding court, then" the court may
order the Sheriff to do it. Mr. DGrSt agreed
that the natural construction OF that IAN
guage would be that the board must first be
notified Of what is needed.
Judge Wallace thought differently. While
such course might be proper, the Legisia-
ture has never seen fit to say so in the eX-
press language of a statute and under the
circumstances he thought the Court would
| be going entirely out of its way to tell the
| Supervisors what they should 90 ana what
| was needed. They are supposed to know
such things without being told
Going still further, Judge 'FRONT.' argued
! in his own behalf that, admitting the statute
| quoted should be so construed even then he
! was within lis provisions. because as soon
as he took Office he notified The board of
what was needed and they ignored him.
\ ot until then did he cali en- the SEerlh.
The whole question then hangs on the one
| point-thaJ Judge Trout notified Tie old
board, not the new board, he having quail
| fed for office before the old board went out
of Office. lie maintains that the Board OF
| Supervisors is a continuous body aud that 1t
was not his duty to notify the new board.
Counselor bursts argument implied shat
notice should have been made TO the new
board and this board now says that habit
! been, and had they known IN such manner
| of Judge TrOutt'S needs, they would have
supplied them at once. They question the
power Of the Judge to ignore them and then
pass demands on the Treasury over their
heads The matter will be taken to the
| Supreme Court tomorrow.