In re Rigg

• Decision Date: 04 January 1924
• Docket Number: No. 55/31.,55/31.
• Citation: 123 A. 243
• Parties: In re RIGG, Solicitor.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

123 A. 243

In re RIGG, Solicitor.

No. 55/31.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Jan. 4, 1924.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

(Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)

In the matter of Charles A. Rigg, a Solicitor in Chancery. On hearing of order to show cause why he should not be charged with and required to answer for contempt. Respondent found guilty.

Argued before WALKER, Ch., and BUCHANAN, V. C.

Ernest Watts, of Burlington, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. Recently the respondent, Charles A. Rigg, Esq., a solicitor of this court, presented to the Chancellor a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Reginald Branch, a prisoner in the jail of the county of Burlington in the custody of the sheriff, and so by him imprisoned and restrained of his liberty in the jail, as it was said, he having been committed by a magistrate upon conviction of violating chapter 208, P. L. 1921, p. 643, § 14, subdiv. 3 (the act defining motor vehicles, etc., and regulating proceedings for the violation of the same), in that Mr. Branch permitted one McCarty to operate a motor vehicle owned by him (Branch) while he (McCarty) was under the influence of intoxicating liquor; whereupon the Chancellor awarded a writ of habeas corpus returnable forthwith, and signed the allocatur on the back thereof and delivered the writ to Mr. Rigg for signing and sealing by the clerk in chancery, who issued it accordingly. The writ was in the usual form, directed to the sheriff of the county of Burlington, and commanded him to have the body of Mr. Branch, together with the day and cause of his taking and detention, before the court at Trenton, aforesaid, forthwith. The Chancellor, however, directed Mr. Rigg to instruct the sheriff to have Mr. Branch before the court at 2 o'clock in the afternoon. At the time and place last mentioned, the Chancellor and Vice Chancellor Buchanan appeared upon the bench, and Mr. Branch was there present in the custody of the undersheriff, but neither Mr. Rigg nor any other solicitor appeared for Mr. Branch, and upon request from the Chancellor to know if the sheriff had made return to the writ the undersheriff replied that neither the sheriff nor he had any writ but were notified over the telephone by Mr. Rigg to produce Mr. Branch at the time and place mentioned. The court waited until 2:30 o'clock in the afternoon, and no one appearing for Mr. Branch, the Vice Chancellor drew an alias writ of habeas corpus directed to the sheriff, commanding him as in the original writ he was commanded, upon which the undersheriff indorsed and signed a return upon the writ; whereupon the hearing was proceeded with, Mr. Branch representing himself. About 2:45 o'clock Mr. Rigg appeared and stated that he had telephoned the sheriff that the writ had been allowed, and that he should produce Mr. Branch before the court at Trenton at 2 o'clock, but that he had not delivered or sent the writ to the sheriff. The cause then proceeded further with Mr. Rigg representing Mr. Branch, who, at the conclusion of the hearing, was remanded to the custody of the sheriff and the writ of habeas corpus was dismissed.

The court being of opinion that the failure of Mr. Rigg to deliver the writ to the sheriff to whom it was directed, and that in advising the latter to enlarge Mr. Branch out of jail and produce him before the court, without any warrant therefor being delivered to the sheriff, and his (Mr. Rigg's) failure to appear in court representing Mr. Branch at 2 o'clock, constituted a contempt of the power, authority, and dignity of the Court of Chancery, and that he (Mr. Rigg) should be charged with such contempt and required to answer therefor, and an order was thereupon made requiring Mr. Rigg to appear before this court and show cause why he should not be adjudged guilty of contempt in respect to the matters aforesaid and punished therefor. On the return of this order Mr. Rigg appeared with Mr. Watts as his counsel, and admitted the statements above made, and said, also, that at and just before...