Kersevich v. Jaffrey Dist. Court

• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Citation: Kersevich v. Jaffrey Dist. Court, 330 A.2d 446, 114 N.H. 790 (N.H. 1974)
• Decision Date: 31 December 1974
• Docket Number: No. 6372,6372
• Parties: , 73 A.L.R.3d 350 . Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Page 446

330 A.2d 446

114 N.H. 790, 73 A.L.R.3d 350

Larry KERSEVICH et al. v. JAFFREY DISTRICT COURT.

No. 6372.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

Dec. 31, 1974.

Raphael J. Shortlidge, Jr., Keene by brief and orally, for Larry Kersevich and Mark E. Stone.

William D. Tribble and Aaron A. Lipsky, Jaffrey, amici curiae, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

'Appeal from an order of the Jaffrey District Court' (Hampsey, J.) which after a full hearing found the plaintiffs in contempt for violation of the dress requirements of the court and sentenced them each to ten days in the house of correction to be served on weekends. The sentence was suspended during the pendency of this appeal. All questions of law were reserved and transferred to this court. RSA 502-A:17-a (Supp.1973).

This district court has required parties appearing before it to comply with certain dress restrictions under which male defendants were to be attired in jacket, tie and slacks, except on occasions when it was established to the satisfaction of the court that the defendant did not own such attire and that it would be a hardship for him to acquire it.

Mark Stone appeared before the court on August 24, 1971, charged with speeding at which time he was dressed in compliance with the court's requirements. His case was continued to August 31, 1971, at the request of the State. On that date Stone was present in court as was Larry Kersevich who was charged with driving with a defective tire. Both cases were continued to September 7, 1971, since neither plaintiff was in compliance with the dress requirements. After ascertaining that plaintiffs did not come within the exception to the rule, the court admonished both of them that on their next appearance the dress requirements were mandatory. They appeared in court twice more not attired as required and were found guilty of contempt on their last appearance. It is agreed that the plaintiffs were aware of the dress rule and that they could comply with it. Their sentences were suspended during the pendency of this appeal.

The district court made the following findings: 'Larry Kersevich was cleanly and neatly attired. He wore a sport shirt hanging over flared blue jeans . . . (He) wore shoes and, I believe socks. He did not wear a tie and jacket. Mark Stone was cleanly and neatly attired. He wore slacks with a sport shirt which was hanging over the slacks. He wore tennis shoe without socks and did not wear a tie and jacket. . . .'

Plaintiffs do not challenge the power of the district court to punish for contempt which occurs within its presence. Benton v. District Court, 111 N.H. 64, 274 A.2d 876 (1971). Such authority is required to prevent acts or conduct which would...