*1 BATES’S CASE. Bates’s Case. Mar [1] ch 11, Court—Evidence. Contempt of pres-V^ not committed proceedings contempt ence of the to be to the course of substantially ought according trials; so, where evidence is introduced to be it respondent, ought generally such as would be admissible on the of an indictment for the same offence. An attachment was issued Bates for against contempt Rudolph court, in P. herself Cheney one Ellen absent term, attendance said at said having she summoned to and testify attend the trial of indictment pend- ing against J. Henry Colby. one The that respondent submitted and claimed question of whether or not he should be deter- was guilty contempt mined by his answers alone to such considering interrogatories. solicitor claimed ex filed in Mary affidavit of Angelí, parte court, on which the motion for the attachment was grounded, answers of said P. Ellen interrogatories Cheney proposed her for in not said should also be consid- obeying subpoena, ered. The affidavit of said solicitor, was taken Angelí examination of said was Cheney before a commissioner appointed The solicitor offered to said Angelí produce before the commissioner to take answers of appointed by the respondent at the allow and to expense county, the respond- ent put to said cross-interrogatories Angelí Cheney. J., court, Smith, ruled the affidavit pro forma' Angelí and admissible; the examination of said and the Cheney were respondent excepted. The questions case, raised in the including any foregoing discretion, were transferred to the judicature court of for deter- superior
mination.
Edes, solicitor, the state.
Burke, for the defendant. referred, J. All questions of discretion are who *Ladd, ordered the attachment, to this court for determination and" upon the facts stated, solicitor, cannot doubt that the claim the with ex respect affidavit of and the answers of Mary parte Angelí, Ellen P. Cheney in inadmissible, the matter her own contempt, pro ruling evidence, wrong. receiving forma *Ssiith, cause, tried this did not sit. [Sullivan, BATES’S CASE. After to be for a are issues, proceedings air attachment *2 regarded Matthews, v. criminal character. State and as of a entitled 87 not in the is committed N. H. the contempt charged 454. Where presence it is of so nature as grave of where a court, especially the —and a witness in a criminal prosecution tbfe and of and to a summons issued from court in disobedience
''absent herself the of the criminal served, administration obstructing thus directly the examination of the defend state, the evidence justice —if should, in be into, is I think sucli evidence re only ant gone for the trial of an indictment the as be admissible on ceived same offence. would Indeed, I no reason the in course the why general see not conform substantial respects the should judge before a and the governed by trial of an indictment be same jury, the before rules. be far the within procedure may We need not how mode inquire court, is no such presented by discretion of the as the the the case; by but to me safe is dictated analo- it seems the course should and governing trials, of the law be gies material that course. sanctioning any departure cautious concurred. J.,C.
Cushing, is authority to punish C. C. C. The neces- Foster, tribunal. 1 judicial Or. Bishop establishment sarily implied Law, sec. 186. is in before the summary all cases without proceeding judge, 255; aof 2 sec. State Law,
the intervention Cr. v. jury. Bishop Matthews, N. H. 456. 87 ; in is various different jurisdictions and procedure apprehend is will very broad, the and be revised discretion seldom it to or so essential is the maintenance of writ of error appeal, court and the of the law that the supremacy of the offence dignity and with delay. be little It has in summarily should therefore punished court, circuit not held the United States even courts a fine or record, nor general power impose imprisonment, curiae instanter. committed be Hol may punished facie 51. And Duane, v. Wall. C. C. probably customary lingsworth is, Maine, inas the state of sum in such cases punish procedure may as the deem just after such marily, hearing presiding R.R. Co. v. R. R. Androscoggin Co., necessary. Androscoggin & c. Me. not If the committed presence offence be to issue an or an order to attachment, seems to general practice issue, should and this an attachment not proceeding cause why show the court. Re Judson, be affidavits furnished to founded upon should is bring of the attachment object 148. The merely 3 Blatch. Matthews, v. before cited. into State offender ordinarily governed When the respondent appears, ' REED «.HATCH. of criminal analogies although respondent will be procedure; answer, allowed to own make his also to demand that the prosecutor should file still, under the established in this state will he not be allowed to his own discharge merely upon the court no redress (thus affording prosecutor except United States v. 2 Gall. process indictment perjury—see Dodge, taken, but both will 318) proofs may sides determine, from a consideration the whole thereupon evidence, guilt or Matthews, of the accused. State innocence v. cited. It seems to be more time enough at same safe appropriate, for the as protection closely adhere possible plan trial. method of criminal matter of except procedure, jury indictment, The attachment should be at substantially like least to the extent of sufficient information con- giving respondent *3 the nature and the of the offence cerning charged; particulars rules of evidence and the of law in criminal cases presumptions applied should be observed. Ius, the case am therefore of the that the opinion respond- ent could not be alleged permitted purge his to interrogatories; but, also, alone that the affidavit of Mary Angelí and the record of the Ellen P. examination of were inadmissible. The respondent’s must sustained.
Exceptions March 11, Reed v. Hatch. A to B a of land on conveyed which a piece saw-mill was and a standing, of A’s land.
right flowage adjoining the habendum Following clause deed were the usual covenants in the form of ordinary warranty deeds. printed. These were After the covenants was inserted the fol- “ said mill provided for manufacture lowing, writing: kept of lum- ber, or as it is use.” After the last long kept word in the was a printed word, covenants printed period. next “provided,” Held, with a small not with a began p, that the capital. proviso the deed and was not applied grant, restricted the covenant of warranty.
The mill was fire. destroyed After the lapse year grantor to erect mill on the
requested grantee new premises, which the grantee erection, do. After reasonable time for neglected Held, a writ of grantor recover the brought entry premises.