Case Name: ROBERT GORDAN, Petitioner, v. A. J. BUCKLES, Judge of the Superior Court of Solano County, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1891-12-28
Citations: 92 Cal. 481
Docket Number: No. 14588
Parties: ROBERT GORDAN, Petitioner, v. A. J. BUCKLES, Judge of the Superior Court of Solano County, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 92
Pages: 481–482

Head Matter:
[No. 14588.
In Bank.
December 28, 1891.]
ROBERT GORDAN, Petitioner, v. A. J. BUCKLES, Judge of the Superior Court of Solano County, Respondent.
Prohibition. — Contempt — Order to Show Cause in Person — Appearance by Attorney — Jurisdiction. — A writ of prohibition will lie to prevent a superior judge from proceeding to hear and determine a charge of an alleged contempt committed by the petitioner by not appearing in person in response to an order to show cause in person why he should not be punished for contempt in failing and refusing to obey a previous order of the court, he having appeared by attorney for the purpose of showing cause by sworn answer and affidavits. That part of the order commanding him to appear in person being beyond the power of the court to make, there is no jurisdictional basis for the proceeding to punish him for contempt in not appearing in person.
Prohibition from the Supreme Court to the Superior Court of Solano County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court, rendered in the case of Ex parte Gordan, ante, p. 478.
J. D. Sullivan, and James G. Maguire, for Petitioner.
Henry I. Kowalsky, and T. J. Crowley, for Respondent.

Opinion:
McFarland, J.
This is a petition for a writ of pro-
hibition to restrain the respondent from proceeding to hear and determine a charge of an alleged contempt committed by petitioner by not appearing in person in the court of respondent on July 3, 1891, in response to an order to show cause. The facts are stated in the opinion of this court, this day rendered in Ex parte Gordan, ante, p. 478. The petition contains some matters referring to the respondent personally, the insertion of which was a violation of professional propriety by counsel for petitioner. All of the petition is stricken out except so much thereof as consists of a bare statement of the facts necessary to show the character of said order of July 3d, and the proposed action of the respondent thereunder.
Let a final writ issue prohibiting respondent from proceeding to punish petitioner for a contempt in not appearing in verson before the court of respondent on July 3, 1891.
De Haven, J., Garoutte, J., Sharpstein, J., and Harrison, J., concurred.