Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1910-06-04

WIG case Iuc IcIuIIIlluI Will Uc CIdLS-
mitted to the district court forthwith.
Correction Of Record.
A mistake in the description of the
boundaries of the above county crept
into the record and pleadings as pre-
pared for the appeal. A motion was
made by Attorney Bangs to correct
the same and this motion was granted
by the court, the result OF which is to
put Bowbells into the new county of
burke.
State of North Dakota, respondent,
vs.. Daniel Heidi, appellant.
1. Appellant was convicted in the
district court of Stark county of a
criminal contempt for violating an
|injunctional order enjoining him from
maintaining liquor nuisance in the
city of Dickinson. He was sentenced
to Imprisonment in the county Jail
for a period of five months and fined
in the aggregate sum of $3.50 with a
proviso that in the event of his fail
iure to pay such fine he be imprisoned
for the additional period of 100 days.
Judge Burr of the Ninth judicial dis
trict presided at the hearing of such
contempt proceeding pursuant to the
written request of Judge Crawford of
the Tenth judicial district. Such re-
quest, emitting title and formal parts,
is as follows:
"You are hereby requested to act
as district judge and take full charge
of the above entitled action, including
all matters and contempt proceedings
therein which are now in issue or
which may hereafter be brought be-
fore you by any person, authority or
officer lawfully entitled to do so or
otherwise as law and justice may re-
quire.-By the court, w. c. Crawford,
judge"
The assignments of error challenge
Cd The jurisdiction of Judge Burr to
hear and determine such contempt
proceeding. (2) The sufficiency of
the affidavits upon which the warrant
of attachment was issued. 60 The
authority of F. c. Hebron, as assis-
tant attorney general, to institute
and prosecute the proceeding. ca
The validity of the Judgment and SEN
tence of the court.
opinion, that each of such assign
ments are untenable.
2. While a criminal contempt pro.
ceeding in which warrant Of attach
ment is issued is an original special
proceeding under the provisions of
section 1855 R. C. 1905, it is not,
strictly speaking, an Independent pro-
ceeding, as it grows out of and is,
to a certain extent, connected with
the proceeding in the main action.
Such contempt proceeding is depend
ent, for it's foundation, upon the pro-
ceedings in the main action and the
violation of the injunctional order
therein issued. The written request
of Judge Burr is sufficiently broad to
confer authority upon him to assume
and exercise jurisdiction, not only in
the main action wherein the injunc-
tional order was issued, but in any
contempt proceeding arising out OF
violation of such injunctional order,
and this, whether the contempt pro-
ceedi1g was pending or not pending
at the date such request was made.
8. Sec. 6765 r. y. 1905 provides:
mo Judge of the district court shall
hear or determine any action, special
proceeding, motion or application, or
make any order or give any judgment
in any action or proceeding not pend
ing in the judicial district for which
he is elected, except in the following
cases: Cd Upon the written request
of the judge of the district in which
such action or proceeding is at the
time pending"
Held, constituting said statute, that
it was not the legislative intent
Thereby to restrict the jurisdiction Of
the Judge thus requested to act in a