Court Opinion

ID: 9701081
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:03:45.246207+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:19.047301
License: Public Domain

Jacobs and Hall, JJ.
(dissenting). The majority finds that the evidence plainly supports the charge that the *506respondents attempted to obstruct the investigation of ticket fixing in Monroe Township.' However, it declines to find them guilty of contempt because no formal order for investigation had been entered until after the attempt had occurred. But long before that time the Supreme Court had, in fact, authorized and directed the investigation by its'Administrative Director and Standing Master, and when the respondents engaged in their interfering conduct they knew that the investigation was well under way. We cannot bring ourselves to believe that the court’s cautious and restrained exercise of its contempt power may soundly be considered as dependent upon the entry of the formal order of March 7, 1960. Indeed, if no such formal order had ever been entered, the respondents’ offensive attempt to thwart the investigation by an arm of the court would nonetheless clearly tend to obstruct and impair the due administration of justice and constitute a contempt of court within the long line of pertinent judicial expressions in our State. See State v. Doty, 32 N. J. L. 403, 404 (Sup. Ct. 1868); In re Hendricks, 113 N. J. Eq. 93, 95 (E. & A. 1933); In re Baker, 8 N. J. 321, 336 (1951); cf. Campbell v. Fort, 3 N. J. L. J. 157 (Ch. 1880); Seastream v. New Jersey Exhibition Co., 72 N. J. Eq. 377 (E. & A. 1907); In re Bowers, 89 N. J. Eq. 307, 309 (Ch. 1918); In re Megill, 114 N. J. Eq. 604, 614 (Ch. 1933); In re Jeck, 26 N. J. Super. 514, 520 (App. Div. 1953), certif. denied 13 N. J. 429 (1953); In re Bozorth, 38 N. J. Super. 184, 188 (Ch. Div. 1955); Van Sweringen v. Van Sweringen, 22 N. J. 440, 445 (1956). Although the majority cites N. J. S. 2A:10-1, it seems sufficient, for present purposes, to refer to the explicit legislative direction that nothing therein shall be deemed to affect the court’s inherent jurisdiction to punish for contempt. Cf. In re Caruba, 139 N. J. Eq. 404, 427 (Ch. 1947), affirmed 140 N. J. Eq. 563 (E. & A. 1947), petition denied 142 N. J. Eq. 358 (Ch. 1948), cert. denied 335 U. S. 846, 69 S. Ct. 69, 93 L. Ed. 396 (1948); In re Bowers, supra. See Toft v. *507Ketchum, 18 N. J. 280, 287 (1955), affirmed on reargument 18 N. J. 611 (1955), cert. denied 350 U. S. 887, 76 S. Ct. 141, 100 L. Ed. 782 (1955).
Pkoctoe, J., concurring in result.
For discharge of orders—Chief Justice Weintkaub, and Justices Ekancis, Peogtok, Schettino and Hanemax—-5.
For holding in contempt—Justices Jacobs and Hall—2.