Zimmerman v. State
| Citation | 64 N.W. 375,46 Neb. 13 |
| Decision Date | 01 October 1895 |
| Docket Number | 7079 |
| Parties | DAVID ZIMMERMAN v. STATE OF NEBRASKA |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
ERROR to the district court of Furnas county. Tried below before WELTY, J.
AFFIRMED.
F. I Foss and W. R. Matson, for plaintiff in error.
A. S Churchill, Attorney General, T. H. Matters, and C. J Dilworth, for the state.
An action for an injunction was commenced in the district court of Furnas county by one Enos Clark against the Cambridge & Arapahoe Irrigation and Improvement Company to restrain it, or any person acting by, through, or under it, from diverting the waters of the Republican river from the natural channel, and upon the presentation of the petition on the 18th of June, 1894, to the judge of the district court for the allowance of a temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit, the matter of such allowance was set for hearing at 1 o'clock P. M. of the following day, and an order allowed restraining the company, or any person or persons acting by, through, or under it, from committing the acts complained of in the petition for injunction. On the 19th day of June, 1894, an affidavit was filed in which it was charged that the plaintiff in error had been guilty of a contempt, consisting of a violation of the restraining order made in the injunction suit. He was arrested and brought before the court or judge, and as the result of a trial upon the charge in the affidavit was convicted and sentenced, and to secure a reversal of the judgment these error proceedings have been prosecuted to this court.
The petition in error contains some assignments which refer to errors alleged to have occurred during the trial. It has been said by this court that a proceeding against a party for contempt is in the nature of a criminal prosecution. (Gandy v. State, 13 Neb. 445, 14 N.W. 143; Boyd v. State, 19 Neb. 128, 26 N.W. 925; Johnson v Bouton, 35 Neb. 898, 53 N.W. 995; O'Chander v. State, 46 Neb. 10, 64 N.W. 373.) It was also determined in the case of Gandy v. State, supra, that "A judgment for contempt may be reviewed on error in the supreme court in the same manner as criminal cases." It would seem to follow that the rules of practice governing error proceedings should be adopted and made applicable to contempt cases where the issues are tried, and among them the one by which a party who desires a review of errors occurring during the trial of a case must file a motion for new trial pointing out such error. (Davis v. State, 31 Neb. 240, 47 N.W. 851.) There was no motion for new trial filed in this case, hence we cannot review any of the errors assigned which are alleged to have been committed...
To continue reading
Request your trial