The defendant, upon application of complainants, has been cited to show cause why he should not be punished for the violation of the temporary injunction heretofore issued against him in this suit. In support of the citation, complainants have taken and submitted a number of affidavits of different persons, which they claim show that defendant has intentionally violated the temporary injunction. Upon the hearing the defendant objected to the use of such affidavits, for the reason that the charge against defendant is criminal in its nature, and cannot be rightly determined upon ex parte affidavits which afford him no opportunity to cross-examine the affi-ants. The complainants’ rights have not been determined, and until they are they would not be entitled to have punishment imposed for their benefit as compensation for any damages they may have sustained because of the defendant’s acts; and the punishment would only be imposed to uphold the authority of the court, and punish disobedience of its orders. This would be what is denominated a criminal contempt, and the penalty imposed, if any, would be for the benefit of the United States. Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co., 194 U. S. 324-328, 24 Sup. Ct. 665, 48 L. Ed. 997; Matter of Christensen Engineering Co., 194 U. S. 458, 24 Sup. Ct. 729, 48 L. Ed. 1072; In re Nevitt, 117 Fed. 448, 54 C. C. A. 622. But whether the contempt be regarded
It is ordered accordingly.