In re Saul, 2796.
| Decision Date | 22 June 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 2796.,2796. |
| Citation | 171 A.2d 751 |
| Parties | In the Matter of John G. SAUL, Appellant. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Before HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges, and CAYTON (Chief judge, Retired) sitting by designation under Code § 11-776(b).
Appellant, a local attorney, was fined fifty dollars for contempt of court.1 He appeals.
The alleged contempt arose from the following circumstances: In March 1960 appellant filed suit for a limited divorce on behalf of his client Catherine A. DeHart. Issue was joined and three months later the case was dismissed because of the reconciliation of the parties. In September appellant filed a motion to reinstate and the case was set for trial on the merits. On the morning of the trial appellant appeared at the clerk's office of the Domestic Relations Branch and was directed to report to Courtroom No. 8. When he arrived there, he found Mr. DeHart, his attorney, and an out-of-town witness waiting. Appellant admitted that he had failed to notify Mrs. DeHart of the trial date and said he would call her. He then left the courtroom and went to the jury assignment office. Without disclosing that he had already been assigned the DeHart case, he became involved in a jury action. In the meantime, the divorce case got under way with-out appellant; his client later arrived, and participated in the proceedings, which ended in a dismissal of her complaint.
On November 22 the judge issued a rule to show cause why appellant should not be held in contempt for "wilfully and deliberately absenting himself from a matter assigned and ready for trial." At the subsequent hearing, appellant's defense was excusable neglect. He apologized for his conduct and the harm done his client. At the conclusion of the hearing, the fine was imposed.
On appeal, appellant's main contention is that the trial judge abused his discretion in imposing a fine following appellant's apology. We find no merit to this contention. We think from an examination of the entire record that appellant's conduct was without reasonable excuse, that it interfered with the proper conduct of the court's business, and that so far as appellant's client was concerned, tended to embarrass the administration of justice. We hold that the trial court's action was justified.
Affirmed.
1. Code 1951, § 11-756(c) provides: "The Municipal Court for the District of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Swisher v. US
...the District of Columbia Court of Appeals has adopted the contrary view. See In re Shorter, 236 A.2d 318 (D.C.1967); In re Saul, D.C. Mun.App., 171 A.2d 751 (D.C.1961).5 We see no reason for us to interfere with the local court's permissible interpretation of its own statutory contempt auth......
-
People v. Henry
... ... See United States v. Anonymous (E.D.Tenn. (1963)), 215 F.Supp. 111; In re Shorter (D.C. (Mun). App., (1967)), 236 A.2d 318; In re Saul (D.C.Mun.App. (1961)), 171 A.2d 751; Lyons v. Superior Court in and for Los Angeles County (1955), 43 Cal.2d 755, 278 P.2d 681, cert. den. 350 U.S ... ...
-
Sykes v. United States
...statute, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals has adopted the contrary view. See In re Shorter, 236 A.2d 318 (1967); In re Saul, D.C.Mun. App., 171 A.2d 751 (1961). We see no reason for us to interfere with the local court's permissible interpretation of its own statutory contempt auth......
-
Kandel v. State
...on its face. See United States v. Anonymous (E.D.Tenn.), 215 F.Supp. 111; In re Shorter (D.C.App.), 236 A.2d 318; In re Saul (D.C.Munn.App.), 171 A.2d 751; Lyons v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County, 43 Cal.2d 755, 278 P.2d 681, cert. denied 350 U.S. 876, 76 S.Ct. 121, 100 L.Ed. ......