Brewster, In re
| Decision Date | 28 November 1975 |
| Docket Number | O,No. 7066,7066 |
| Citation | 115 N.H. 636,351 A.2d 889 |
| Parties | In re Ralph BREWSTER. riginal. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Anthony McManus, Dover, for Ralph Brewster.
Warren B. Rudman, Atty. Gen., and Roger G. Burlingame, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Merrimack County Superior Court.
This is a petition filed in this court by Ralph Brewster in which he claims that he was denied due process in a contempt proceeding arising out of a divorce action and that the conduct of the court violated the Canons of Judicial Ethics. We find no foundation for either claim in the record before us which by agreement consists of the report of the attorney general, to whom the petition was referred for investigation, and the transcript of the hearing on the petition for contempt.
By the decree of divorce dated November 29, 1968, following a hearing in which Ralph appeared pro se, real estate located in Pittsfield was awarded to Joyce, the libelant, who in turn was to pay Ralph $3,000 within five years and give him a mortgage to secure the payment. Ralph was ordered to pay $40 per week for support of the children. Joyce never gave a mortgage but in January 1973, Ralph gave her a deed to the property and she paid him the sum of $1,525.00. Following this, Ralph ceased making support payments. In February 1973, Joyce filed a petition for modification and petition for contempt. Ralph appeared pro se at a hearing before a master on May 21, 1973, who found that Ralph had lived in the Pittsfield property following the divorce, used it for business purposes, and that Joyce had supplied board, housekeeping and laundry services worth $59 per week or a total of $1,475 and that Joyce was entitled to a setoff of this amount on the $3,000, which together with the $1,525 already paid constituted compliance with the decree. The master rejected Ralph's claim that as part of the transaction in January when he gave Joyce the deed, he was to be relieved of further support payments in lieu of payment of the balance by Joyce. Ralph was found in contempt and was given thirty days to pay the arrearage found to be $720 as of May 14, 1973. A decree in accordance with this master's report was dated May 23, 1973. Ralph did not appeal and the finding and rulings became final under Superior Court Rule 69, (RSA 491:App.R. 69 (Supp.1973)) and Mr. Brewster was not thereafter entitled to relitigate them.
On July 27, 1973, Joyce filed a petition for contempt against Ralph for failure to comply with the May 23, 1973 decree. Ralph, appearing pro se, filed motions and requests to be relieved of compliance, for a continuance until the justice who heard the original divorce could preside, for modification, and to dismiss Joyce's petition. On November 15, Ralph was notified of a hearing to be held November 26 'relative to pending motions.' He then requested a continuance and that he be furnished a transcript of part...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cersosimo v. Cersosimo
...Citizens Bank of Clovis, 244 F.2d 511, 512 (10th Cir. 1957); Hampton v. Gilmore, 511 S.W.2d 442, 443 (Mo. App. 1974); In Re Brewster, 115 N.H. 636, 638, 351 A.2d 889 (1975); State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Sherman, 82 N.M. 316, 318-19, 481 P.2d 104 It is apparent that the trial co......
-
International Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Wilson
...as litigants with counsel. Martinez-McBean v. Government of V.I., 562 F.2d 908, 912-913 (3d Cir.1977); In re Brewster, 115 N.H. 636, 638, 351 A.2d 889 (1975) (per curiam); Commerce Bank of Kansas City v. Conrad, 560 S.W.2d 388, 390 (Mo.App.1977). We see no reason to make an exception here. ......
-
Com. v. Jackson
...and evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of guilt and innocence' "); In re Brewster, 115 N.H. 636, 638, 351 A.2d 889 (1975) ("those appearing pro se are required to abide by and are bound by the same rules of procedure as are those with counsel, and......
-
Town of Bartlett v. Furlong
...(affirming trial court order "prohibiting the plaintiff from filing further pleadings in the courts of this State"); In re Brewster, 115 N.H. 636, 638, 351 A.2d 889 (1975) ("Of course, those appearing pro se are required to abide by and are bound by the same rules of procedure as are those ......