Case Name: ARTHUR BRIGHAM ROSE, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY et al., Respondents
Court: District Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1941-04-30
Citations: 44 Cal. App. 2d 599
Docket Number: Civ. No. 13109
Parties: ARTHUR BRIGHAM ROSE, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports, Second Series
Volume: 44
Pages: 599–601

Head Matter:
[Civ. No. 13109.
Second Dist., Div. One.
April 30, 1941.]
ARTHUR BRIGHAM ROSE, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY et al., Respondents.
A. Brigham Rose, in pro. per.

Opinion:
WHITE, J.
I vote to deny the petition, primarily on the reasoning and holding in C. S. Smith Metropolitan Market v. Superior Court, 16 Cal. (2d) 226 [105 Pac. (2d) 587]. In the instant case it appears from the petition before us that after an order to show cause in re contempt had been issued, petitioner appeared in response thereto and offered to present his defense, which right, he claims, was denied him, and that he was thereupon found guilty of contempt. He bases his defense, according to the claims of his petition, upon the irrelevancy and immateriality of the questions propounded to his client and which petitioner advised his client not to answer. Under the cited case, it appears to me that his remedy was by way of certiorari or habeas corpus. In my opinion, these remedies remain available to petitioner should the court proceed to pronounce judgment.
Furthermore, in any petition for certiorari, habeas corpus or prohibition presented under the facts of this ease, we should be furnished with a copy of the pleadings in the litigation in question, together with a copy of the deposition containing the disputed questions and answers, as well as a copy of the affidavit upon which the order to show cause in re contempt was issued. In determining the materiality, eom petency or relevancy of the questions upon which the order to show cause in re contempt was predicated, we must of necessity have before us the foregoing documents. In the instant petition we are not furnished with them.