State v. District Court of Silver Bow County

• Decision Date: 11 April 1906
• Citation: 85 P. 870,34 Mont. 107
• Parties: STATE ex rel. BREEN v. DISTRICT COURT OF SILVER BOW COUNTY et al.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

85 P. 870

34 Mont. 107

STATE ex rel. BREEN v. DISTRICT COURT OF SILVER BOW COUNTY et al.

Supreme Court of Montana

April 11, 1906

Certiorari by the state, on the relation of Peter Breen, against the district court of Silver Bow county and another to review an order adjudging relator guilty of contempt. Annulled.

Peter Breen and Jesse B. Roote, for relator.

Albert J. Galen, Atty. Gen., and E. M. Hall, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.

BRANTLY C.J.

Certiorari to the district court of Silver Bow county to review an order adjudging Peter Breen, Esq., an attorney at law, guilty of contempt. On March 6th of this year there was on trial in department 3 of said court a cause entitled "State of Montana v. Harry Smith"; the said Breen appearing as counsel for defendant. During the progress of the trial, the court made and entered the following order: "Whereas the above-entitled court, on the 6th day of March, 1906, was duly in session, the Honorable Michael Donlan, Judge presiding, and there was then and there on trial before the said court a case entitled the 'State of Montana v. Harry Smith,' and whereas the above-named Peter Breen, an attorney at law, and an attorney in the said case, while the court was duly in session, knowingly and willfully addressed the court in a contemptuous, insolent, and disrespectful manner, and in an insolent, contemptuous, and sneering manner called, and attempted to call the said Honorable Michael Donlan, judge as aforesaid, to prove and attempted to prove by said judge certain scandalous matters, which the said Peter Breen alleged had transpired in the said court on a former occasion, and which allegations were made for the purpose of reflecting upon the honesty and judicial integrity of said judge and which did reflect upon the honesty and integrity of said judge, and thereupon the court then and there found, decided, adjudged, and decreed that the said Peter Breen was guilty of contemptuous and insolent behavior toward the judge of the said court, while holding the court, tending to interrupt the due course of a trial and which did interrupt the due course of the trial of said cause, and immediately after so finding the said Peter Breen guilty then and there ordered, adjudged, and decreed, and sentenced that the said Peter Breen should pay a fine of five hundred ($500.00) dollars, and to be committed as required by law in case of failure to pay the said fine. Now, therefore, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the said Peter Breen forthwith pay the said five hundred ($500.00) dollars to the clerk of this court, and that in default thereof the said Peter Breen be committed to the county jail of said county until the said fine has been paid for at the rate of two ($2.00) dollars per day." Thereupon the present proceeding was brought to have the order annulled, for that it does not appear from the facts set forth therein that the court had jurisdiction to punish the relator.

Section 2170 of the Code of Civil Procedure declares disorderly conduct, contemptuous or insolent behavior toward the judge while holding the court, tending to interrupt the due course of the trial or other judicial proceeding, a contempt. Contempts may be direct or indirect. If direct-that is, in the immediate view and presence of the...