Zimmerman v. State
| Decision Date | 01 October 1895 |
| Citation | 64 N.W. 375,46 Neb. 13 |
| Parties | ZIMMERMAN v. STATE. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
1. A proceeding against a party for contempt in this state is in the nature of a criminal prosecution, and governed by the rules of construction and practice applicable thereto.
2. A judgment for contempt may be reviewed on error in the supreme court in the same manner as criminal cases.
3. In order to secure a review of errors committed during a trial in proceedings for contempt, such errors must first be submitted to the court wherein such proceedings were had by a motion for new trial.
4. Formal defects in an information and warrant or order of arrest must be taken advantage of by objections made in the proper manner before going to trial, otherwise they will be deemed waived.
5. The proceedings in this case examined, and held fully within the jurisdiction of the trial court, as conferred upon it by section 260 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Error to district court, Furnas county; Welty, Judge.
Complaint by the state of Nebraska against David Zimmerman, charging contempt. Judgment of guilty, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.F. I. Foss and W. R. Matson, for plaintiff in error.
A. S. Churchill, Atty. Gen., 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 & 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. 448, 14 N. W. 143;Boyd v. State, 19 Neb. 128, 26 N. W. 925;Johnson v. Bouton, 35 Neb. 903, 53 N. W. 995;O'Chander v. State (Neb.) 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 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial