Blue Jeans Corp. v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, AFL-CIO

• Decision Date: 02 April 1969
• Docket Number: AFL-CIO,No. 6913SC42,6913SC42
• Citation: 4 N.C.App. 245,166 S.E.2d 698
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: , 72 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2659 BLUE JEANS CORPORATION and Whiteville Manufacturing Company v. AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA,, et al.

Page 698

166 S.E.2d 698

4 N.C.App. 245, 72 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2659

BLUE JEANS CORPORATION and Whiteville Manufacturing Company v. AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, et al.

No. 6913SC42.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 2, 1969.

Powell, Lee & Lee, by J. B. Lee, Jr., Whiteville, for plaintiff appellees.

Rountree & Clark, by John Richard Newton, Wilmington, for defendant appellants.

CAMPBELL, Judge.

Since the only exception preserved and argued in this Court by the defendant appellants was the refusal of the superior court judge to grant the motion for a jury trial, the question presented for decision is: 'In this contempt proceeding, were the defendant appellants entitled to a jury trial?' The answer to this question is 'no.'

In the case of In re Gorham, 129 N.C. 481, 40 S.E. 311, the respondents were cited to show cause why they should not be adjudged in contempt for tampering with a jury in a civil trial. They were adjudged in contempt and two of the respondents were committed to jail for twenty days and fined fifty dollars each. The third respondent was fined fifty dollars. The Supreme Court held: 'The respondents were not entitled to a trial by jury, nor to have the findings of fact reviewed in this court. There was evidence before his honor to support the findings, and that is all that is required.'

In Safie Manufacturing Co. v. Arnold, 228 N.C. 375, 45 S.E.2d 577, a restraining order had been issued restraining and enjoining the defendants from unlawfully interfering with plaintiff's employees in connection with a strike. The defendants were cited to show cause why they should not be adjudged in contempt for violating the restraining order. Upon the hearing the defendants were adjudged in contempt and were imprisoned and fined for varying periods of time and in various amounts, the greatest being for a period of thirty days and a fine of one hundred fifty dollars. Winborne, J. (later C.J.) stated:

'It is appropriate to note, in summary, that the contempt proceeding against respondents, appellants in this Court, arises out of a principal action in which Superior Court judges, presiding over Superior Courts of Richmond County, courts of competent jurisdiction, successively issued three injunctive orders for the purpose of protecting persons who desired to work, and who had a right to work, if they so desired, in plaintiff's plant. And while the orders are by their terms temporary and effective only until final trial of the cause, they are lawful orders of a court of competent jurisdiction. Any person guilty of willful disobedience of such order may be punished for contempt of court. G.S. § 5--1.'

Various errors were urged by the respondents on the appeal, all of which were considered and denied by the Supreme Court, including the following:

'It is further contended in effect that this contempt proceeding is of criminal nature, and is governed by the rules of procedure and the law applicable to criminal prosecutions, and hence the judgments rendered under the circumstances of this proceeding exceed the jurisdiction of the court. As to this contention, in this State a contempt proceeding is authorized by statute, G.S. § 5--1. This Court has described it as Sui generis, criminal in its nature, which may be resorted to in civil or criminal actions. In re Hege (205 N.C. 625, 172 S.E. 345). And it is held that persons charged are not entitled to a jury trial in such proceeding. In re Gorham (supra).

In Luther v. Luther, 234 N.C. 429, 67 S.E.2d 345, Ervin, J., speaking for the Supreme Court, pointed out the difference between a proceeding under G.S. § 5--1 'for contempt' and a proceeding under G.S. § 5--8 'as for contempt'. The difference was again pointed out in Rose's Stores, Inc. v. Tarrytown Center, Inc., 270 N.C. 206, 154 S.E.2d 313, where Branch, J., speaking for the Supreme Court, stated:

'The punishment as to matters punishable For contempt is limited to a fine not to exceed $250 or imprisonment not to exceed thirty days, or both, in the discretion of the court. G.S. § 5--4. However, punishment As for...