34 Mont. 107 | Mont. | 1906
delivered the opinion of the court.
Certiorari to the district court of Silver Bow county to review an order adjudging Peter Breen, Esq., an attorney at law, guilty of contempt.
On March 6th of this year there was on trial in department 3 of said court a cause entitled “State of Montana v. Harry Smith,” the said Breen appearing as counsel for defendant. During the progress of the trial, the court made and entered the following order: “Whereas, the above-entitled court, on the 6th day of March, 1906, was duly in session, the Honorable Michael Donlan, Judge, presiding, and there was then and there on trial before the said court a case entitled the ‘State of Montana v. Harry Smith,’ and whereas the above-named Peter Breen, an attorney at law, and an attorney in the said ease, while the court was duly in session, knowingly and willfully addressed the court in a contemptuous, insolent, and
Section 2170 of the Code of Civil Procedure declares disorderly conduct, contemptuous or insolent behavior toward the judge while holding the court, tending to Interrupt the due course of the trial or other judicial proceeding, a contempt. Contempts may be direct or indirect. If direct — that is, in the immediate view and presence of the court or of the judge at chambers — they may be punished summarily. In such ease the order or judgment of conviction must recite the facts upon whieh the conclusion or adjudgment that the eontemnor is
The conviction here was for a direct contempt. The judgment, however, is wholly insufficient to meet the requirements of the statute. It does not contain, even by appropriate reference to the proceedings before the court, anything to show what the matters referred to as scandalous were, nor any fact tending to show what the manner of the relator was. It states conclusions and inferences only, drawn by the judge from the facts as they actually transpired, thus leaving this court no alternative but to accept these conclusions or to hold the order invalid. The purpose of the statute is to require the court to set forth the jurisdictional facts, so that the propriety of the judgment of conviction may be examined and reviewed. If adjudged sufficient as it stands, the order complained of would be conclusive upon this court, and review of it, as to the sufficiency of the facts to put the power of the court in motion, would be impossible.
In a given case, where the contempt consists in the manner or bearing of the eontemnor, it may be difficult for the court to set forth the facts in any other form than by a shorthand rendering thereof, so to speak; but it is, nevertheless, necessary that the attendant circumstances be set forth, so that the propriety of the conclusion reached may be determined.
The relator has presented this case in his affidavit, upon the theory that this court may look beyond the order and determine from the facts whether or not the judgment of the district court was proper. In such ease, however, we may not look beyond the contents of the order itself.
It appears from the facts stated in the petition 'that at the time the order was made counsel were about to enter upon the selection of a jury to try the case of State v. Smith, and that the
The order itself being insufficient to show that the court had jurisdiction to make it, it is void and must be annulled. It is so ordered.
Order annulled.