The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1897-04-23

JurlSdlctlOn IN criminal cases.
The court accepts Rapalyi's clas-
sific tion of contempts into civil and
criminal, and quotes his definition of
either and conclude that tho pro-
ceedings in this case are, however,
not civil but crimi lal. The attorney
general prosecutes the defendants in
the name Of the State for public
offence. It's form, purpose and effect
is to punish. 1t is, therefore, dis
tinct from and independent of tho
case OF Wengel vs.. the Brewery Co.,
and may proceed after that case has
gone out of court. The court then
stated the facts in tho case in ques-
ton, reviewing the whole history of
the affair.
The court then enquiries whether
tho verified report of August Be-
quest state facts sufficient to consti-
stute contempt of court, and says
all atfidavits of thu kind must make
out prima facie case.
| The return of A. +. G. Cramer is
quoted in full, who states that he
was a party to the suit and that the
property, having been taken proco--
sion of by tho United States court, it
should not be turned over by the re-
ceiver, who was in possession before
a receiver by the State was appoint
| cd.
The court holds that the judgment
in contempt seems to rely upon the
statement above, as a basis for the
charge Of contempt in violating tho
order of injunction. The injunction
restrained the creditors and stock
holders "from prosecuting any action
against said company except in these
proceedings" Cramer certainly was
not prosecuting an action against
tho brewery company. 1t would be
a great mistalo to hold that Cramor
was guilty Of contempt in doing the
samo thing required of the State re-
cover. He simply asserted what he
doomed was the legal right of his
company.
! AS to Docsher, tho court holds
that there is nothing in the records
to show that he had anything to do
with the action in the United States
court. His appearance in that court
was in answer to the process Of that
court; therefore he could not be in
contempt of the injunction orders.
AS to E. II. Sparl1man, tho court
says there can be no question that
tho United States court had jurisdic,
ton in tho De LaVcrgne case against
the brewery. Is then the filing of q
cross bill by defendant in such
cause the prosecution Of an action
against tue brewery? The court
does not think SO, and says that it is
not charged that Sparkman enducod
the Do LaVorgno Go. to bring the
suit. The United States court hav.
ing Jurisdiction and the Surety Sav.
ings bank having been brought into
the court as defendant had q right
to defend it's interests involved ac
cording to the practice of that court
AS to James Simons, after recitinp
the facts tho court says there is nc
evidence that Mr.. Simons ever knew
of tho order or injunction. Indeed
Judge Benet says that tho "roturr
of Mr.. Simons almost exonerates
him." His honor does not STATE
wherein Mr.. Simons is to blame, and
does not ad;',dge him guilty of con
tempt, but orders the rule against
him "be discharged so soon rs he
gives satisfactory assurances to this
court that he will not oppose the
withdrawing of tho suit from the
United States court, but will coope
ratio in an effort to do so, if such be
possible" Tho condition imposed
was not lawful. Tho rule SHOULD
have been dismissed without condi
ton.
As to Huger SinlSler the cour
says that it is unnecessary to ado
anything to what has been stated il
tho case Of Sparkman. The facts
stated do not constitute q contemp
of court.
AS to Julian Mitchell and II. A
M. Smith, the facts found agains