Title: McMillan v. MOUNTAIN L. RAC., INC.
Citation: 356 A.2d 742, 467 Pa. 266
Docket Number: N/A
State: Pennsylvania
Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Date: May 12, 1976

467 Pa. 266 (1976) 356 A.2d 742 Dorothy McMILLAN and William C. McMillan, her husband, Plaintiffs, v. MOUNTAIN LAUREL RACING, INC., a corporation, et al., Defendants. Appeal of Arthur R. GORR. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued September 26, 1975. Decided May 12, 1976. *267 Arthur G. Stein, Stein &amp; Winters, Pittsburgh, for appellant. Roslyn M. Litman, Pittsburgh, for amicus curiae. Before EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX and MANDERINO, JJ. MANDERINO, Justice. Appellant, Arthur R. Gorr, an attorney, was found guilty of contempt of court and ordered to pay a $100 fine or be committed to jail in default of payment. At the time of the incident which led to the contempt citation, appellant was trial counsel for defendants in a negligence suit. During the noon recess following the contempt citation, appellant, who was unable to pay the fine forthwith, was handcuffed in the courtroom and then taken to jail. Sometime later that day, he was returned to the trial court, and a supersedeas was entered. This appeal followed. The incident with which we are concerned took place at the beginning of the negligence suit. The plaintiffs had called an officer of one of the defendant corporations to the witness stand and had just completed questioning him. The court then addressed appellant, Arthur R. Gorr, and the following occurred: Mr. Bodnar, call the sheriff. Mr. Beinkemper, you may cross-examine this witness. (The jury was excused from the courtroom) The motion for withdrawal of a juror is denied. Stand in recess until 1:30. (The luncheon recess was taken.) By statute the situations in which a court may inflict summary punishment for contempt are narrowly restricted. Infliction of summary punishment for contempt of court is authorized if there is "misbehavior. . . in the presence of the court, thereby obstructing the administration of justice." See Act of June 16, 1836, P.L. 784, § 23, 17 P.S. 2041. A conviction under that provision of the statute "requires a finding of conduct that amounts to misbehavior in the presence of the court and a further finding that the misbehavior obstructed the administration of justice." Tenenbaum v. Caplan (Mallin Appeal), 454 Pa. 1, 4, 309 A.2d 428, 430 (1973). We have considered that which transpired between the trial court and the attorney in the colloquy earlier quoted and conclude that the appellant did not engage in misbehavior which obstructed the administration of justice. POMEROY, J., concurs in the result. Judgment reversed.