Case Name: STATE ex Rel. v. RIDER
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1915-01-13
Citations: 78 Or. 318
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE ex Rel. v. RIDER.
Judges: Mr. Justice Benson, Mr. Justice Burnett and Mr. Justice McBride concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 78
Pages: 318–326

Head Matter:
On motion to dismiss appeal, argued January 13,
denied January 26, 1915.
On the merits argued October 5, reversed November 9, rehearing denied December 7, 1915.
STATE ex Rel. v. RIDER.
(145 Pac. 1056; 152 Pac. 497.)
Contempt — Appeal—Bill of Exceptions.
1. Whether a sentence for contempt exceeds the limits fixed by statute, being determinable from an examination of the judgment as exemplified in the record, may be submitted on appeal without a bill of exceptions, even though other questions discussed in the brief could not be considered without the evidence and a bill of exceptions.
C ontempt — Appeal—Record—Additional Abstract.
2. Where respondent deems the abstract imperfect or unfair, he should file an additional abstract, as prescribed by Supreme Court Rule 7 (56 Or. 616 [117 Pac. x]).
Contempt — Appeal—Assignments of Error — Sufficiency.
3. That assignments of error in the abstract on appeal fall short of technical accuracy does not require a dismissal of the appeal, not essential to a transfer of the cause.
Contempt — Appeal—Transcript—Authentication.
4. Where defendant has attempted in good faith to comply with Laws of 1913, page 656, declaring that when an appeal is perfected the original pleadings and the original bill of exceptions shall be sent up by the clerk of the trial court and made a part of the transcript, he will be allowed to supply a certificate to meet the objection that the pleadings and papers sent up were not properly authenticated.
ON THE MERITS.
Appeal and Error — Record—Certification.
5. Documents not certified by the judge as having been received or offered in evidence at the trial cannot be considered on appeal, though certified by the clerk below and filed in the appellate court.
Appeal and Error — Record—Questions Presented.
6. In the absence of a bill of exceptions, the only question to be considered on appeal is whether the findings of fact support the judgment.
Justices of the Peace — Supplementary Proceedings — Disobedience of Order — Punishment—Proceedings.
7. Where a judgment debtor is discharged, in proceedings for contempt before a justice of the peace in not paying over, as ordered, money found to be in his possession in supplementary proceedings, and the judgment creditor appeals to the Circuit Court, the burden is on the creditor to show that the money is still in the debtor’s possession; there being no presumption thereof.
[As to courts and tribunals authorized to punish for contempt, see note in 117 Am. St. Rep. 950.]
From Marion: Percy R. Kelly, Judge.
In Banc.
Statement by Mr. Justice Harris.
This is a motion to dismiss an appeal from tbe judgment of tbe Circuit Court of Marion County finding tbe defendant guilty of contempt. Tbe reasons assigned in tbe motion are that: (1) No bill of exceptions was allowed or filed; (2) tbe evidence bas not been brought before tbis court; (3) tbe abstract filed herein is insufficient because the affidavit for contempt on which tbe judgment was based is not set forth in full, tbe findings of fact are only partially recited, and tbe conclusions of law are omitted; (4) there are no assignments of error which could be determined on appeal; and (5) tbe notice of appeal was not served on tbe district attorney or other officer of tbe State of Oregon. The transcript filed includes copies of the judgment, notice of appeal showing acceptance of service by both the district attorney and the attorney for the relator, and the undertaking on appeal. There are, in the hands of the clerk of this court, what purport to be papers filed in the Justice Court, where the contempt proceeding originated, and also what appear to be papers filed in the Circuit Court. There is no bill of exceptions. The objections will be considered in the order already stated.
Motion Denied.
Mr. Ernest R. Ringo, District Attorney, and Messrs. McNary, Smith & Shields, for the motion.
Mr. Ivan G. Martin and Mr. Carey F. Martin, contra.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Harris
delivered the opinion of the court.
One of the questions sought to be determined by this appeal is whether the sentence imposed by the court exceeds the limits fixed by statute. An examination of the judgment, as we find it exemplified in the record, will reveal a recital of sufficient facts to enable a decision of the point raised. At least one phase of the case can be submitted on appeal without the presence of a bill of exceptions, and even though other questions discussed in the brief could not be considered without the evidence and a bill of exceptions.
If plaintiff deemed the abstract imperfect or unfair, an additional abstract could have been filed as provided by Rule 7, 56 Or. 616 (117 Pac. x); Francis v. Bohart, 76 Or. 1 (143 Pac. 920).
The assignments of error as set forth in the abstract are sufficient; and, even if they fell short of technical accuracy, the rule in Proctor v. Jeffery, 76 Or. 151 (144 Pac. 1192), would apply.
The objection that the district attorney was not served with the notice of appeal is answered by the fact that the record shows that he admitted service.
The defendant has attempted in good faith to comply with the provisions of Chapter 335 of the Laws of 1913, and has caused to be sent to the clerk of this court, not only all the pleadings, but also all the original papers filed in the case. Objection has been made to these pleadings and papers because not properly authenticated, and defendant, therefore, has requested permission to supply a certificate that will meet the objection made. The request of defendant is granted.
"While vexatious appeals should be discouraged, yet' the opportunity for litigants to have their issues tried in the higher courts should not be hindered by technical constructions, which too frequently lead to the subversion of justice: Smith v. Algona Lumber Co., 73 Or. 1 (136 Pac. 7).
The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.
Motion Denied.