State ex rel. Jones v. Conn
Citation | 37 Or. 596,62 P. 289 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. JONES v. CONN. |
Decision Date | 08 October 1900 |
Court | Supreme Court of Oregon |
Appeal from circuit court, Lake county; H.L. Benson, Judge.
Proceeding by the state, on the relation of George Jones, for contempt against George Conn. Judgment of guilty, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
This is a proceeding for contempt, instituted by filing the following affidavit: Upon presentation of the affidavit, a citation was issued by one of the judges of the First judicial district, requiring the defendant to appear before him at Klamath Falls on a day named to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt. Thereafter such proceedings were had that at the hearing the defendant was adjudged to be in contempt of court, and sentenced to pay a fine of one dollar and costs. From this judgment he appeals, assigning as error the insufficiency of the affidavit and want of jurisdiction.
C.A. Cogswell, for appellant.
D.R.N. Blackburn, Atty. Gen., for the State.
BEAN C.J. (after stating the facts).
Our statute relating to the punishment of contempts provides that, when not committed in the immediate view and presence of the court, "before any proceedings can be taken therein the facts constituting the contempt must be shown by an affidavit presented to the court or judicial officer." Hill's Ann.Laws Or. § 653. This affidavit is essential to the jurisdiction of the court in all proceedings for constructive contempts ( State v Kaiser, 20 Or. 50, 23 P. 964, 8 L.R.A. 584); and it must state facts which, if established, will constitute the offense. If it is insufficient in this respect, there is nothing to set the power of the court in motion, and it is without jurisdiction to proceed. Works, Courts, 492; Wyatt v. People, 17 Colo. 252, 28 P. 961, and authorities; Batchelder v. Moore, 42 Cal. 412; McConnell v. State, 46 Ind. 298. Now, a proceeding for contempt for violating an injunction is in its nature criminal (5 Cr.Law.Mag. 171; Freeman v. City of Huron, 8 S.D. 435, 66 N.W. 928; Lester v. People, 150 Ill. 408, 23 N.E. 387, 37 N.E. 1004; Wyatt v. People, supra); and therefore the statute must be strictly pursued (4 Enc.Pl. & Prac. 770). It requires that facts shall...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Robertson v. State
...... appellate jurisdiction.". . . In. State ex rel. Attorney General v. Speake, 187 Ala. 427, 65 So. 840, Chief Justice Anderson, speaking for the. ...224; Childs v. Bostwick, 12. Daly (N.Y.) 15; Dennis v. Coker, 34 Ala. 61; Jones. on Liens, § 1454.". . . There. are many cases holding that a complaint or ...1035; State ex rel. Harvey v. Davies, 16 N.D. 106, 112 N.W. 60; State ex rel. Jones v. Conn (1900) 37 Or. 596, 62 P. 289; Freeman. v. Huron, 8 S.D. 436, 66 N.W. 928; Belangee v. State, ......
-
Ex Parte Landry
...v. State, 54 Neb. 626, 74 N. W. 1097; Ludden v. State, 31 Neb. 429, 48 N. W. 61; Sargent v. Warren, 22 N. Y. Wkly. Dig. 473; State v. Conn., 37 Or. 596, 62 Pac. 289; Freeman v. Huron, 8 S. D. 435, 66 N. W. 928; In re Judson, 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,563, 3 Blatchf. 148; Parkhurst v. Kinsman, 18 F......
-
Creekmore v. United States
...and charges in the within information are true, as he verily believes,' does not render such information void. The case of State v. Conn, 37 Or. 596, 62 P. 289, not involve the question now under consideration at all, but was a question of the construction of the Oregon statute. In State v.......
-
Charles Cushman Co. v. Mackesy
...arbitrary, and its exercise is not to be upheld, except under the circumstances and in the manner prescribed by law." State ex rel. Jones v. Conn, 37 Or. 596, 62 P. 289, is to the same effect as the preceding case. The court said, page 599, 62 P. page 290: "Indeed, a proper regard for the l......