Page images
PDF
EPUB

ii. By judgment creditor and sheriff.

Seizing property in possession of receiver-As against strangers, receiver becomes such on giving security in pursuance of order appointing.

(c.) Interference with sheriff.

By honest claimant without force-By officer of inferior CourtClaimant using violence, proceeding with sale, and removing goods, after service of an interpleader summons-Sheriff acting in bad faith, seizing goods not included in fi. fa.

Note I.-Can a party be hindered in seeking legislation in order to avoid the obligation of an undertaking?

Note II.-Contempt by arrest.

§i. Violent or unseemly behaviour before the Court.

NY riot or disturbance in a Court of Justice, any rude and contumelious behaviour, any obstinacy, perverseness, or prevarication, any breach of the peace, any interference of persons attending the Court by expressions of their sentiments, improper in themselves, or intended to overawe or interrupt the proceedings, is a contempt which may be summarily visited with punishment by the Court in whose vicinity the offence has been committed.*

So it is a contempt to insult the Judge by word of mouth, to insult, or interfere with jurymen, or wit

* Bl. 4, Com. ii., xx.; Powis v. Hunter, 1832, 2 L.J. Ch. (N.S.), 31, 32, per Lord Brougham, L.C.; Watt v. Ligertwood, 1874, L.R. 2 Sc. & D. 361, citing case of Henry, Prince of Wales, committed by Gascoigne, C.J.; as to this precedent the reader may consult a Note 6 L.Q.R., and the writer there referred to. It is asserted by Wilmot, C.J., in Rex v. Almon (1765, Wil. Op. 243), that cases of committal for contempt are to be found in the Year Books.

+ Reg. v. Langley, 1704, 2 Salk. 697, per Holt, C.J.; Reg. v. Jordan, 1888, 36 W.R. 589; 57 L.J. Q.B. 483 (“that is a most unjust remark"); Hind's Case, Times, 5th Feb., 1890; Shedden v. Patrick, 1869, L.R. 1 Sc. & D. 470, 481, et seq.

In re Pater, 1864, 33 L.J. M.C. 142. (The Court will rightly protect those discharging an onerous and unpaid office, and unable to protect themselves.)

*

nesses, to distribute in Court defamatory circulars in comment on a judgment,† to jump up, wave a hat, and shout, on a jury returning a verdict, to throw a missile at the Judge in Court,§ to transgress a rule properly laid down by the Judge for the decent and orderly conduct of the cause, as by persisting in introducing matter ruled to be irrelevant, upon the conclusion of the case, to strike a party in the lobby of the Court, or in defiance of an express order of a Judge, to carry away a document in custodia curia, and forming part of the process depending in the Court.**

It is not essential to a contempt of this character that the act should be done in the immediate presence of a Judge sitting in Court. The offence is constituted by interference with Judicial proceedings in which a Judge, or some other person, is acting as a Judicial officer. Distance in point of time or space is a matter to be taken into consideration in determining whether there has been an interference with the course of Justice, but if the intention is clear to cast contumely and insult on a Judicial proceeding, then there is a contempt.††

So the Court has power to commit for contempt in relation to proceedings before a Judge at Chambers.‡‡ And

* Wright v. Wilkin, 1858, 6 W.R. 643.

+ Ex parte Van Sandau, 1844, 1 Phil. 445.

Rex v. Stone, 1796, 6 T.R. 527, 530 (fined £20).

§ Re Cosgrave, Malins, V.C., 16th March, 1877, A. 450, Seton ii., 1589.

|| Rex v. Davison, 1821, 4 B. & Ald. 329.

T Rex v. Wigley, 1835, 7 C. & P. 4, S.C. O'Gorman Mahon's Case, cited Ex parte Wilton, 1 Dowl. N.S. 805 (committed for three days, Coleridge, J.— a witness (the prosecutor), struck the defendant).

**Watt v. Ligertwood, ubi supra.

++ In re Johnson, 1887, 20 Q.B.D. 68, 71, 72, per Lord Esher, M.R., p. 75, per Bowen, L.J.; Rex v. Wigley, ubi supra.

In re Johnson, 1887, 20 Q.B.D. 68 C.A., S.C. Jonas v. Long, 31 Sol. Jo. 727.

it is a contempt to attempt to break open a desk in a Registrar's office,* to abuse, threaten, and insult persons in the master's office,† or to improperly interfere with a witness under examination before a Commissioner.

But a person appealing for his own protection to the extraordinary power of the Court should do so instantly, making immediate application to the presiding Judicial officer, or, ordinary remedies being open to him, he will be left to them.§

And though violence is offered by one person to another in the transaction of affairs having some relation to pending proceedings, it may not, in the circumstances, as where it was offered at his office by one solicitor in the cause to another solicitor in the cause not at the time engaged in the performance of any duty devolving upon him as such solicitor,-constitute a contempt.||

§ ii. Jurors.

A juror cannot be fined or committed as for contempt for returning a verdict contrary, as it appears to the Judge, to the plain and manifest evidence, for the Jury alone are judges of the facts. Neither can a juror be punished for returning a verdict contrary to the direction of the Judge; for, if that were so, a Jury would become a mere incidental

* Ex parte Burrows, 1803, 8 Ves. 535, Lord Eldon, L.C.

+ French v. French, 1824, 1 Hog. 138; Ex parte Jones, 1806, 13 Ves. 237. Wright v. Wilkin, ubi supra. (Solicitor shewing witness under examina

tion original will to assist his memory as to where he placed his name.)

§ In re Macleod, 1842, 6 Jur. 461, so explained s.n. Ex parte Wilton, I Dowl. N.S. 805, in In re Johnson, ubi supra. (Assault on upper step leading from master's office-party should complain at once to master.)

Republic of Costa Rica v. Erlanger, In re Clements, 1876-7, 35 L.T. 752; 36 ib. 332; 46 L.J. Ch. 375, C.A. See also as to this section, Kirby v. Webb, 1887, 3 T.L.R. 763 (" on leaving taxing master's office"-not sufficiently exact description in affidavit).

inconvenience at a trial. Nor is it a contempt for one to stand out against the other eleven and refuse to agree, for a minority of one is as much entitled to abide by his own opinion as a minority of five. But it is a contempt in a juryman to fail to attend when duly summoned, or to refuse to be sworn, or to affirm, as the case may be; or, after being sworn, to absent himself from his fellows and the deliberations of the Jury; to receive a bribe; to receive evidence from either party not given in Court on oath; to eat or drink or refresh himself without the leave of the Court; to refuse to give a verdict, or to combine with other jurors to deceive the Court, as by agreeing on two verdicts, and concealing one if the Court accepts the other as a sufficient verdict.‡

*Bushell's Case, 1670, Vaugh. 135; 6 St. Tr. 999. + Ib., per curiam.

The County Juries Act, 1825 (6 Geo. IV., c. 50); the Juries Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict., c. 77); Layburn v. Crisp, 1838, 8 C. & P. 397; earlier cases cited and approved, Bushell's Case, Vaugh., at p. 151; 2 Hawk. P.C., c. 22. It seems that it is not the practice to hear counsel on behalf of a juror who has been fined for non-attendance, but counsel may read affidavits stating circumstances in extenuation. Carne v. Nicoll, 1834, 3 Dowl. P.C. 115—C.P. If a summons is left at the usual place of abode of a juror with some person there, that person is deemed the agent of the juror to receive the summons, and to apprise his principal thereof; or, if that were impossible, to attend and explain to the Court the reason for the non-attendance of the juror. Ex parte Clarges, 1827, 1 Y. & J. 399. But if the summons is left at the wrong house, or if the party summoned has left his house and is abroad, and the fact of his absence is communicated to the summoning officer at the time of service, the fine will be remitted. Ex parte Ford, 1827, 1 Y. & J. 400; Ex parte Brown, 1827, ib. And the Court has granted several applications to remit fines imposed on persons summoned as special jurors upon affidavits stating that the party summoned was absent from his usual place of residence from before the delivery of the summons until after the time to which the summons applied had expired. Reporter's note to Ex parte Clarges, ubi supra. The fine is usually £10; after deducting costs and expenses there would not be a large (if any) balance of the remitted fine. It is better to see to it, that someone shall attend and explain.

§ iii. Witnesses.

It is contempt in a witness not to attend the Court at the time and day stated, and appear when his name is called,* having been personally served with a subpoena, and been paid or tendered his proper expenses.† But a witness ought to be allowed a sufficient time to set his affairs in order‡, and if, upon the service of the subpana, the plaintiff undertakes to let the witness know if he is wanted, the plaintiff, not giving notice, should not afterwards apply to commit for non-attendance.§

It is likewise a contempt in a witness to refuse to be sworn, or to affirm, as the case may be, or to prevaricate in his evidence when sworn, or, unless he can shew some exemption in his favour, to refuse to answer upon any question of fact material and relevant to the issue, the Court deciding upon the relevancy of the question, and the sufficiency of the excuse.T

*Turnor v. Warren, 1579, Cary, 161; Hammond v. Stewart, 1726, 1 Str. 510; Wyatt v. Winkworth, 1729, 2 Str. 810; S.C. Wyat v. Wingford, 2 Ld. Ry. 1528; Barrow v. Humphreys, 1820, 3 B. & Ald. 598; Dixon v. Lee, 1834, 3 Dowl. P.C. 259; Rex v. Fenn, 1835, 3 ib. 546.

+ Smalt v. Whitmill, 1737, 2 Str. 1054; Chapman v. Pointon, 1741, ib. 1150; Wakefield's Case, 1736, Ca. t. Hardw. 313; Fuller v. Prentice, 1788, 1 H. Bl. 49; Ca. t. Hardw. 313; 1 H. Bl. 49; Ashton v. Haigh, 1814, 2 Ch. Rep. 201; Ex parte Daniel O'Connell, 1839, 3 Jur. 980; R.S.C., Order xxxvii., rr. 5, et seq.

Hammond v. Stewart, ubi supra. (Service at 2 p.m. in the City to attend Middx. Sittings same day.)

§ Rex v. Plunket, 1762, 3 Burr. 1329. As to non-attendance as a witness it is immaterial that the witness is also a party. Powell v. Nevitt, 1886, 55 L.T. 728, Kay J.

Bl. 4 Com. 281, 283.

¶ Ex parte Fernandez, 1861, 30 L.J. C.P. 321, 332, 333. As to exemptions, St. Dig. Ev., Arts. 108 A., et seq. If the witness attends the Court he cannot refuse to answer on the ground that he has not been served, Cutler v. Wright, W.N., 1890, p. 28, Stirling, J. As to the exemption on the ground of incrimination, if it once appear that the witness is in peril, great latitude will be

« PreviousContinue »