Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1900-08-02
v. T.b0AROMAN
TAKEN TO JAIL
w
~
COMMITTED FOR CONTEMPT FOR
REFUSING TO ANSWER
QUESTION.
RIGHT OF A JUSTICE TO
COMMIT HIM QUESTIONED.
Involves an Interesting Legal Point
Constable Had to Go for Mr..
Boardman. "

w. L. BOardman a k insur-
ance and real estate agent, was turned
over to the sheriff by Constable Rhoades
of Justice Nichols court this morning
on a commitment issued by Justice Mich
OILS between 3 and 4 O'Clock yesterday for
to answer a question propound-
ed to him while his deposition was being
taken in a suit brought by Patrick Talent
and Robert Mcbride against B.. s..
Thresher, Mr.. Boardman and his wife
n Louise Allen to quiet title to lot No.
4 OF block 38. AS soon as the sheriff re-
celved Mr.. B~oardman, Attorney Thresher
began habeas corpus proceedings to Sc
cure the release of the prisoner, basing
It upon the proposition that a justice Of
the peace is not vested with power to
commit a witness to Jail for contempt in
a civil proceeding. In support of this al
legation Mr.. Thresher says that when
the deposition of Senator w. A. Clark in
the $10O, 900 damage suit brought by
Fred Whiteside against Mr.. Clark and
others was being taken before Justice
Nichols some time ago, MI. Clark refused
to answer many of the questions pro-
pounded to him by attorneys for White-
and was not adjudged guilty of con-
tempt. On that occasion, however, these
attorneys deviated from the proper legal
course by attempting to pry into the pri-
waite affairs Of the witness, which, it is
claimed, la no bearing pom the mat
ter at issue.
The taking Of Mr.. Boardman's deposit
ton was commenced about 3 o'clock with
Attorney Robert Mcbride, one of the
plaintiffs in the action, representing his
side and Mr.. Thresher that Of himself
and the other defendants. Mr.. Boardman
was first questioned directly and after
he had completed his testimony was
cross-examined by Mr.. Mcbride. Being
asked a question relative to the property
in controversy he refused to answer n
Mr.. Mcbride requested the court to COM
init him to jail for contempt. The court
complied, but while the commitment was
being made out Mr.. Boardman, not hav-
ing any particular desire to spend a night
behind the bars, walked out of the room
went home. This morning Constable
Rhoades took hin into custody and
commitment specified that the witness
should not be deprived of his liberty
more than one day, but even that dura-
tion of time has terrors for those VINO
like freedom at all times, and Mr.. Board
man objected to as much as q minute:
The petition for the writ was signed by
Judge Clancy and made ~returnable at 4
O'Clock this afternoon. In the meantime
MI. Boardman was not thrown into the
all, being allowed to remain in the Oflce
OF the jailer and take matters as easy
as the circumstances would admit.
r. The point raised in connection With the
order made by Justice Nichols is one that
has not as yet been decided in the higher
courts here and the outcome IN the
Boardman case will be watched with IN
terest by the legal fraternity. It has
been held by the courts that a notary
public has no power to commits for con-
tempt, but the authority of a justice or
the peace has never been brought before
a high tribunal for determination. Inc
defense in the Boardman case holds that
a Justice has no o authority on TINS
score than a notary, while the other sid
maintains h the former is a 1udlclal
officer and as such has the right to COM
NIT for contempt.