MacNeil v. United States
Decision Date | 10 August 1956 |
Docket Number | No. 5094.,5094. |
Citation | 236 F.2d 149 |
Parties | Angus M. MacNEIL, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Angus M. MacNeil, Somerville, Mass., pro se.
Maurice P. Bois, U. S. Atty., Concord, N. H., with whom William Maynard, Asst. U. S. Atty., Plymouth, N. H., was on the brief, for appellee.
Before MAGRUDER, Chief Judge, and WOODBURY and HARTIGAN, Circuit Judges.
Writ of Certiorari Denied November 13, 1956. See 77 S.Ct. 150.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered January 4, 1956, in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire whereby the defendant was adjudged in civil contempt and ordered committed to custody until such time as he should comply with the Court's order to return to William H. Craig, Jr., Receiver, the sum of $473.09. The defendant was further adjudged guilty of criminal contempt and ordered to pay to the clerk of the court a fine of $400, together with costs in the amount of $137.59, and to stand committed until the sentence be performed.
The following quotation from the opinion of the trial judge provides a convenient statement of most of the relevant facts.
It further appears from the record that bad checks drawn in favor of Pepin and Toscano in the amounts of $44.60 and $59.12 respectively and signed Somerville Milling Company by Angus M. MacNeil were cashed for the drawees by Champagne's Super Market which at the time of the trial had not attempted to obtain restitution from the drawees and had been unable to collect from the drawer.
The record further shows that the defendant attempted to elicit testimony to the effect that Garden Homes, Inc. delivered merchandise to J. J. Moreau and Sons, Inc. in excess of $369, it apparently being contended that the bill in that amount had thereupon been paid.
Still further we think it should be noted that this entire proceeding in its civil as well as criminal aspect was initiated by the trial judge entirely on his own motion without application by any party to the original foreclosure action.
Defendant contends that there was no valid order which was legally entered upon which a contempt could be predicated. We do not agree. The order of September 13, 1953, although ostensibly directed toward the receiver, clearly contemplated that all funds paid over would be applied by the defendant to the payment of bills approved by the receiver.
Defendant further contends that there was no notification and information of the crime charged as required by law. We find no merit in this contention. The defendant was apprised by the trial judge in open court as follows:
This was a clear compliance with Rule 42(b), F.R.Cr.P. 18 U.S.C. which provides in part:
* * *"
Defendant's contention that hearings were held in his absence is disproved by the record and merits no serious consideration.
Likewise without merit is the contention that defendant was subjected to double jeopardy in violation of law by the court's action in vacating the verdicts of December 30, 1955, wherein defendant was found guilty of civil and criminal contempt, and the substitution therefor on January 4, 1956, of a sentence to the following effect:
"* * * I am now making a guilty finding in criminal contempt and I am finding you in civil contempt, which is reflected by my findings this day which have been reduced to an opinion, and which I will hand you a copy."
This amounts to nothing more serious than changing the date of the findings. No substantial changes were introduced and the defendant has not been prejudiced. Although the opinion of January 4, 1956, which was incorporated by reference into the judgment of the same date emphasized that the defendant was not personally liable for the payments ordered, this was apparently done out of an abundance of caution since the verdict of December 30 did not in any way imply a personal obligation. Parker v. United States, 1 Cir., 1942, 126 F.2d 370.
We defer momentarily our consideration of defendant's contention that there was no loss complained of by the plaintiff, preferring to treat it in conjunction with the additional contention that the court took a very interested position and was the real prosecutor.
Accordingly we...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. American Tel. and Tel. Co.
...a court may enforce its own judgments by means of criminal contempt even if there has been no request from a party. MacNeil v. United States, 236 F.2d 149 (1st Cir.1956). See also United States v. Barnett, 346 F.2d 99 (5th Cir.1965); United States v. International Union, 190 F.2d 865 (D.C.C......
-
United States v. Williams
...the duty of the judge to take affirmative action when the lawful commands of the court are defied' * * *." MacNeil v. United States, C.A. 1st (1956), 236 F.2d 149, 1534, certiorari denied (1956), 352 U.S. 912, 77 S.Ct. 150, 1 L.Ed.2d 119. This is not to adjudicate that Mr. Butcher, Jr. must......
-
International Business Machines Corp. v. United States
...conduct and to deter future conduct. This is a criminal sanction. McCrone v. United States, 307 U.S. 61, 64 (1939); MacNeil v. United States, 236 F.2d 149, 154 (1 Cir.), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 912 (1956); United States v. International Union, United Mine Workers, 190 F.2d 865, 873 8 In Unit......
-
Spangler v. Pasadena City Bd. of Ed.
...in interest may institute a civil contempt action; a district court is without authority to do so sua sponte. MacNeil v. United States, 236 F.2d 149, 153--55 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 912, 77 S.Ct. 150, 1 L.Ed.2d 119 (1956); see Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 444......