Woods v. Jianas, Civ. A. No. 5357.

• Decision Date: 09 August 1950
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 5357.
• Parties: WOODS, Housing Expediter, v. JIANAS.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri

92 F. Supp. 102

WOODS, Housing Expediter, v. JIANAS.

Civ. A. No. 5357.

United States District Court W. D. Missouri, W. D.

August 9, 1950.

Joseph E. Babka, Regional Atty., Office of Housing Expediter, St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff.

J. K. Owens, Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.

REEVES, Chief Judge.

Counsel for the government in the above case instituted a proceeding entitled "Criminal Action." Subsequently there was filed an "Amended Petition for the Institution of Criminal Contempt Proceedings." The defendant was duly summonsed into court and filed his answer to the amended petition. By the second paragraph of his answer he asserted: "* * * that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover in this matter for the reason that this is an attempt to imprison this defendant for a debt which is contrary to Article II of Section 16 of the Constitution of Missouri Mo.R. S.A.Const.1945, art. 1, § 11, and is in violation of the Statutes of the United States of America 28 U.S.C.A. § 843 now § 2007." And then, by paragraph 3, being the final paragraph of the answer, the following is averred: "Defendant for further answer states that he does not have the sum or sums of money set out in said complaint with which to make the refunds ordered by this Court." It appears from the petition in the alleged criminal contempt proceedings that heretofore, towit, on or about the 25th of March, 1949, an injunctive order was issued against the defendant restraining the collection of excess rentals on housing accommodations owned or operated by him and that the order was supplemented with a mandatory one directing the defendant to "restore forthwith to Thomas Cosgrove the sum of $225.00, to Thelma Bebermeyer the sum of $45.00, to Gus H. Haney the sum of $450.00, and to Mrs. R. J. Hall the sum of $200.00."

It is then averred that: "The defendant has wilfully and knowingly violated said rent regulations for housing and said acts as amended, and said permanent injunctive order by refusing to obey and make restitution as ordered by the Court, and by reason whereof is in wilful and knowing criminal contempt and should be punished as provided by law." A preliminary question is whether the acts of the defendant as set out in the petition constitute criminal or civil contempt. By Section 3691, Title 18 U.S.C.A., the Congress intimated a definition of criminal contempt as follows: "Whenever a contempt charged shall consist in willful disobedience of any lawful * * * rule, decree, or command of any district court of the United States by * * * omitting any act or thing in violation thereof, and the act or thing done or omitted also constitutes a criminal offense under any Act of Congress, or under the laws of any state in which it was done or omitted, the accused, upon demand therefor, shall be entitled to trial by a jury." (Emphasis mine.) It is then provided by another paragraph of said section that: "This section shall not apply * * * to contempts committed in disobedience of any lawful * * * order, rule, decree, or command entered in any suit or action brought or prosecuted in the name of, or on behalf of, the United States." Undoubtedly there may be a criminal contempt without the intervention of a jury. While this section provided for jury trials, in criminal contempts, under certain circumstances it did not undertake to change the law as it has prevailed over the years in respect of contempts of court. The common law rule prevails with respect to civil and criminal contempts in the federal courts as well as in the State...