State ex rel. Jones v. Conn

CourtSupreme Court of Oregon
Writing for the CourtBEAN, C.J. (after stating the facts).
Citation37 Or. 596,62 P. 289
Decision Date08 October 1900
PartiesSTATE ex rel. JONES v. CONN.

62 P. 289

37 Or. 596

STATE ex rel. JONES
v.
CONN.

Supreme Court of Oregon

October 8, 1900


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: "In the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Lake County. State of Oregon ex rel. George Jones, Plaintiff, v. George Conn, Defendant. State of Oregon, Jackson County--ss.: I, Austin S. Hammond, being first duly sworn, on oath say I am the attorney for the above-named George Jones in a suit now pending in the circuit court for Lake county, wherein said George Jones is plaintiff, and said George Conn is defendant, and on the _____ day of May, 1897, the Hon. W.C. Hale, one of the judges of said court, duly made and issued an order restraining the said George Conn, his attorneys, agents, and employés, from using any of the waters of Chewaucan river, in said county, for the purpose of irrigation, upon the northeast quarter of section 23, or the north one-half of the northwest quarter of section 24, in township 33 south, range 18 east, of the Willamette meridian, in said county, and said order is still in full force; that I am informed and believe that said George Conn, in violation of said order, and with full knowledge thereof, and with the intention willfully to violate and disobey the same, has been during the past two weeks, and now is, using said waters for the purpose of irrigation upon said lands and all of them, and threatens to continue so to do, and he refuses to obey said order; that said order was duly served upon said George Conn a few days after the issuance thereof. [ Signed] Austin S. Hammond. Subscribed and sworn to before me and in my presence this 21 day of June, 1898. [ Signed] W.I. Vawter, Notary Public for Oregon." 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.

[37 Or. 598] 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • Robertson v. State, 6 Div. 643
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • December 16, 1924
    ...16 N.D. 151, 112 N.W. 52, 14 Ann.Cas. 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, 97 Neb. 184, 149 N.W. 415; Ex parte Landry, 65 Tex.Cr.R. 440, 144 S.W......
  • Ex Parte Landry
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • February 28, 1912
    ...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 Fed.......
  • Creekmore v. United States, 4591.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • October 17, 1916
    ...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, did not involve the question now under consideration at all, but was a question of the construction of the Oregon statute. In Stat......
  • Charles Cushman Co. v. Mackesy
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
    • June 30, 1938
    ...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 liberty of t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • Robertson v. State, 6 Div. 643
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • December 16, 1924
    ...16 N.D. 151, 112 N.W. 52, 14 Ann.Cas. 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, 97 Neb. 184, 149 N.W. 415; Ex parte Landry, 65 Tex.Cr.R. 440, 144 S.W......
  • Ex Parte Landry
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • February 28, 1912
    ...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 Fed.......
  • Creekmore v. United States, 4591.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • October 17, 1916
    ...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, did not involve the question now under consideration at all, but was a question of the construction of the Oregon statute. In Stat......
  • Charles Cushman Co. v. Mackesy
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
    • June 30, 1938
    ...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 liberty of t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT