Ex parte Bick

• Decision Date: 29 June 1907
• Citation: 155 F. 908
• Parties: Ex parte BICK.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

155 F. 908

Ex parte BICK.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. New York.

June 29, 1907

Charles Golzier, for petitioner.

Abram I. Elkus, opposed.

WARD Circuit Judge.

This is a proceeding to discharge the petitioner by means of a writ of habeas corpus from a commitment for contempt of court. After a petition of involuntary bankruptcy had been filed against Philip and Joseph E. Bick, copartners, the petitioner, Joseph E. Bick, was required by an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to appear before a special commissioner for examination. After having testified several times before the special commissioner he was adjudicated a bankrupt, and subsequently on the petition of William Henkel, Jr., receiver, the District Court made an order requiring the petitioner to show cause why he should not be adjudged guilty of contempt for false testimony, and for vague, contradictory, contemptuous and evasive answers given in order to conceal assets of his estate. The petitioner filed an answer denying the contempt and appeared on the return day personally and by counsel. The return of the United States marshal shows that the district judge permitted the petitioner to testify before him in open court with reference to the acts and conduct charged against him. At the conclusion of the hearing the court adjudged the petitioner to be guilty of contempt and committed him to the United States marshal for imprisonment in Ludlow Street jail for two months.

It is objected on behalf of the petitioner that he has not been charged with misbehavior within the provisions of Rev. St U.S. Sec. 725 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 583). It is true that this word is not used; but the District Court has found that the petitioner's testimony is false, vague, and evasive, with the intent of misleading the court and concealing assets of his estate. It is as clear an instance of misbehavior as if the petitioner had refused to testify at all. Mr. Collier's work on Bankruptcy (page 125) is cited as showing that unsatisfactory answers, even if contemptuous, are not contempt in law, and cannot be punished as such. If he includes within the category of unsatisfactory answers such testimony as the petitioner's, I prefer to follow the decision of Hough, J., in the Matter of Fellerman (D.C.) 149 F. 244.

The petitioner also contends that the proceeding before the District Court was a criminal proceeding for...