The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1908-06-04


for his own safety or decline the aid
OF others or use unseemly or undesir-
able methods of defense he may not
avoid being held for contempt by in
voking his inherent right of self de-
Tense
Most of the citations upon the re-
/ ouirement that the circumstances be
| fully set forth in the warrant appear
/ to be cases of constructive contempts
Thus in Goetz V. Stutsman, IS Ia. 693.
/ contempt for violating an Injunction.
/ the warrant recited that the plaintiff
/ had been convicted of contempt in vio-
lating the terms and conditions Of an
injunction in a case pending in court
and that the offense was proved by wit
+ nesses. THE statement of facts seems
! to be sufficiently full for the purposes
! of this case In Wilcox Y State 46
! Neb 402 contempt for refusing to be
/ sworn and refusing to testify, it was
! held that the judgment was fatally de-
! fective in falling to set forth that the
/ witness refused to affirm as we'll as to
/ be sworn. Poertner V. Russell. 33 Wis.
/ 1913, contempt for violating an injunc-
! ton, held that the record sufficiently
| showed the particulars in which the
| injunction had been violated in spe-
cifying that they had violated the
aforesaid Injunction and order" In
Commonwealth V. Perkins, 124 Pa. SO,
a commitment for contempt was held
to be insufficient because sit wholly
fails to show the nature of the con-
tempt" Elk Parte Rowe, Cal. 1S1,
holds that refusing to answer cer-
tain questions propounded to the wit
ness by the grand jury was INSULT
oil Mt of
cause it does not appear whether the
questions were legal or not In Peo-
pie V. Court of Sessions, lat n. Y. 29O,
the commitment merely showed that
at the day named the parties in the
case appearing in person and by coun-
sci and after hearing counsel the court
tdid determine and adjudge'' that the
REALTORS We're guilty of criminal con-
tempt of court" The contempt con-
sisted in publishing newspaper articles
rejecting upon the trial court. The
New York statute, which was like our
own, contained mo new doctrine the
general rule being that mo person
shall be punished for contempt of
court, which was a criminal offense,
unless the specific offense charged
against him was distinctly stated"
The commitment was held to be in
sufficient in failing to set forth the
articles. In Elk Parte Rickert, 126 Cal.
PA, the alleged contempt consisted in
instructing the secretary of a corpor
alton defendant in the case before the
court not to produce certain books
which the court had ordered him to
produce The commitment was not ac-
companied by an affidavit, as required
by statute, showing the facts con-
CIT fif1cr f6n ant nd
the petitioner was discharged.
It is true that fighting in court may
be justified by various circumstances
bu- in order that the mittimus should
set forth circumstances showing that
it was unjustifiable on the theory that
fighting is in itself blameless. a COM
prehensive and elaborate recital would
be required such as is not used in any
indictment charging IAN ARRAY by
fighting" 1t would be immaterial and
would not be averred in such indict-
ment whether fists or pistols were used
or that the person indicted was net
brought into the affrayffor the purpose
of self protection, while verdict of
guilty would imply that no justifica-
ton was shown. The fighting under
the circumstances set forth in the NIT
timus was prima facie culpable, and
while the statute requires that in To
view of a commitment for contempt
mo presumption of law shall be made
in support of the jurisdiction to rem
der such judgment or pronounce such
sentence or order such commitment
(Sec. 1913 r. L., a negative is not re-
quired to be averred or proved, nor
does the statute require the particu
larity of statement of an indictment
lf on 10 w iS ly~x-l
even in an indictment under our stat
ute to aver that the act charged was
done with force and arms or
against the peace" Sec. 1881 R. L.
And so ION the general principle that
it is unnecessary to deny that which
the other side would properly affirm
in defence, it is well settled that an
Indictment for a statute Offence need |
not negative the provisos, or show that |
the defendant is not within the benefit |
of the exceptions in the distinct clauses
of the statute King V. Hull, Haw. |
81
In looking at the acts enumerated by |
the statute, Sec. 1869 r. L., as punish |
able contempts, it would seem that a |
warrant of commitment reciting |
judgment of contempt by open re- |
sistance to the process of the court |
would require that the process be men |
toned, but not enumeration of facts |
showing open resistance" while for |
contempt by insulting, contemptuous,
contumelious, disrespectful or disor-
derby language, behavior or act or
breach of the peace, noise CT other dis
turbance,'' the language, behavior, act
or circumstances of the disturbance |
ought to be specified. Contempt by
to answer any legal and |
proper interrogatories ought to show
what they were, and so of publishing
animadversions on the evidence or
in a pending trial tending
to prejudice the public respecting the
same. and to obstruct and prevent the
of Justice in order that
it may appear whether as a matter Of
law they would so tend. So of mali
cious invectives against a court or
jury tending 10 bring such court or
jury, or the administration of justice
into ridicule, contempt, discredit or
odium," they should be named for the
same reason. Fighting would be dis
orderly behavior. noise or other dis