Case Name: In the Matter of the Application to Punish William Barnes, Jr., Appellant, as for a Contempt in Not Answering Certain Questions in the Matter of the Investigation of the Departments and Offices of the City and County of Albany by the Senate Committee Composed of Hon. Howard R. Bayne, Chairman, and Others, Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1911-11-29
Citations: 147 A.D. 396
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of the Application to Punish William Barnes, Jr., Appellant, as for a Contempt in Not Answering Certain Questions in the Matter of the Investigation of the Departments and Offices of the City and County of Albany by the Senate Committee Composed of Hon. Howard R. Bayne, Chairman, and Others, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 147
Pages: 396–403

Head Matter:
In the Matter of the Application to Punish William Barnes, Jr., Appellant, as for a Contempt in Not Answering Certain Questions in the Matter of the Investigation of the Departments and Offices of the City and County of Albany by the Senate Committee Composed of Hon. Howard R. Bayne, Chairman, and Others, Respondents.
Third Department,
November 29, 1911.
Witness — subpoena — contempt — refusal to testify and to produce books — constitutional law.
Section 856 of' the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to the imprisonment of a person who refuses to be examined, or produce books and papers, pursuant to subposna duly issued, is unconstitutional, in that it does not provide for notice to the person whose imprisonment is sought. Houuhton, J., dissented, but concurred in result, with opinion; Betts, J., dissented, with opinion.
Appeal by William Barnes, Jr., from an order of the Supreme Court, made by a justice of the Supreme Court and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Albany on the 20th day of November, 1911, directing a warrant to issue to the Albany county sheriff, commanding him to apprehend the appellant, and to commit him to jail until he answer certain questions and produce certain books and papers.
William M. Ivins and Edgar T. Brackett, for the appellant.
James W. Osborne and Arthur T. Warner, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
The only authority upon the subject holds that section 856 of the Code of Civil Procedure contemplates no notice to the alleged offender. We do not feel at liberty to overrule those cases. (Matter of McAdam, 7 N. Y. Supp. 454, General Term, First Department, 1889; Matter of Grout, 105 App. Div. 98, Second Department, 1905.) The question, therefore, is whether this section, so construed, violates the appellant's constitutional rights. In the case of criminal contempts it is provided by section 751 of the Judiciary Law (Consol. Laws, chap. 30; Laws of 1909, chap. 35) that if committed in the presence of the court the offense may be punished summarily; otherwise the alleged offender must have notice and time to prepare his defense. In the so-called civil contempts (Judiciary Law, § 755, 757) a person cannot be punished for contempt until after he is brought before the court by warrant or an order tó show cause and given, an opportunity to be heard. The McAdam case, above cited, holds that although no notice is required the section is valid. The Grout case holds that the section is unconstitutional in that the defendant has had no opportunity to be heard. Adopting the construction placed upon the section by the above authorities, that no notice is contemplated, we are constrained to follow the Grout case, as the latest decision of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction, that the statute is unconstitutional, and that the order should be reversed and the motion for commitment denied.
All concurred, except Houghton, J., concurring in result in memorandum, and Betts, J., dissenting in brief memorandum, and voting for affirmance, on opinion of Justice Joseph A. Kellogg in the court below.