*1 and since not reason “way”; yet public highway user, be described the interim twenty years’ may reasonably as a out laid under of statute” within “private way of RSA 259:1. that travel follows thereon meaning to travel on subject statutory regulation applicable public General Accident Fire Assur. highways. Corp. Life Brow, 327 Mass. 313 Mass. also, Nemours, 784-785. 353 Mo. City Clayton 2d 724. 7 Am. Jur.
We hold accordingly Street Lot” “Vaughan Parking is a Portsmouth within the “way” RSA 259:1. meaning
Remanded. All concurred. Court, Municipal
Manchester No. & a. R.
Joseph 2, 1963. Argued April
Decided June *2 General, William Elmer T. Attorney Bourque, Maynard, Matthews, Assist- General, Law and A. Irma Deputy Attorney ant for the State. Matthews orally), {Mrs. Millimet, Bartram
Devine, & Branch Stahl McDonough, {Mr. Moquin. R. for defendant C. Branch Joseрh orally), defend- for Eaton, & Eaton Eaton Ross Robert! orally), {Mr. ant L. Houghton. Jon 19, 1962, a motorcycle operated by August Lampron, J. was a was involved on which Moquin passenger
Houghton eluded the motоr vehicle laws. They in several violations of were later The defendants arrest at that time but apprehended. that would assume between themselves Moquin respon- agreed a record оf offenses. had prior for these Houghton sibility if his license he feared the loss of appeared violations and the the with Consequently present transgressions. charged to believe that led the officers defendants police interrogating was the This resulted complaints being Moquin operator. the the six issued for violations Moquin operation fact while it was in operated by Houghton. motorcycle court of Man- defendants were Both present were entered chester when nolo contendere by Moquin pleas him and the accepted to the presiding jus- charges agаinst tice and fines imposed. admitted he was not
Later same day Moquin opera- were issued tor and as a result for these violations complaints to the offenses who charged. against Houghton pleaded guilty The these same offenses for Moquin prior complaints against were forward and dismissed. then brought that court both defendants admitted
When questioned by when was not Moquin motorcycle оperator had occurred, was, that and that two offenses Houghton the re- that would assume between themselves agreed license. for the violations protect sponsibility Houghton’s should not the defendants On the to show cause why hearing there were findings presiding contempt, be adjudged fraud had upon they perpetrated an obstruction their conduct they constituted of contempt. were guilty is for inherent very
The power is all essential to the courts functioning organization Matthews, 450; H. State v. 37 N. State of our system. judicial Towle, 546; H. H. 42 N. N. 147 Conn. Wood Georgia, Jackson, such U. S. courts necessity pоwers is that more than which it before probable people appear is obvious. all other courts combined No reasons precedent are or contrary holding suggested cоmpelling policy it is Furthermore none apparent. duty responsibility *3 courts to alert from of be to protect judicial processes being into and to act when confronted disrepute vigоrously brought with acts or which tend to obstruct or with conduct interfere Treon, and the due of v. administration State orderly justice. E. 188 N. 2d App. 1963), (Ohio Commonwealth, v.
In 314 two Berlandi persons were found of for their in a “tаke- contempt guilty participation scheme to secure the one freedom of of them the-rap” designed who of was a It was in crime. held v. State 136 guilty Jaffrin, 2d N. E. 436 that the of in (Ohio 1956) taking money pay- ment for a “fix” a arrest promise traffic so without or trial with appearance the offense person charged could avoid constituted even if in punishment no act further- contempt of аnce this was shown. conspiracy Treon,
The facts State v. bear a supra, striking similarity to those in many the case before respects us. It was there held who, that a newspaper reporter, with a cooperation effort to police someone tickets, of trap suspected traffic fixing ain participated to issue to him plan two tickets for nonexistent traffic violations which were docket, entered on the court’s not of direct although guilty could be found probably of indirect It was guilty contempt. so stated even though fictitious citations were not in prepаred presence court but an official in the traffic and bureau even though did not defendant in an knowingly participate to defraud attempt the court. 17 C.J.S., 5. 8. Contempt, p.
The two defendants our сase could be found to to so conduct conspired knowingly themselves as to have com- 12 numer- was of the innocent issued who Moquin,
plaints instead against Houghton, traffic violations charged, оus that their motive Also had committed offenses. who which was the due administration to obstruct so acting to drive loss of license result Houghton’s would probably could be found further their scheme vehicle. а motor and did in the issuance result presentation was successful a court of Manchester against complaints of the offenses. Moquin other than defendant perpetrator and obstructiоn aided this deception further predetermined to these complaints open justice by pleading his who was was participant by present, equally Houghton, action. which tacit of Moquin’s silence constituted approval entire conduct could that their course We are opinion .of a fraud found, to constitute as it was justice, be presiding v. State on 'the an obstruction 308, 313; v. E. 2d 188 N. 1963), Treon (Ohiо App. E. 2d 136 N. Berlandi App. 1956), (Ohio Jaffrin Katelhut, Commonwealth, Mass. 424. See People 2d 350 W. Ill. Ex Burl S. App. parte Billy Clayton, State, 112 Cr. Neb. App. Taylor (Tex. 1961); Remanded. Kenison, Duncan, dissented; others J., concurred. C.J. I cаn defendants’ Kenison, agree C.J., dissenting: *4 in were actions this case wrong morally reprehensible, legally do and should be not decide But conclusions punished. threshold the before us. The question frequently quеstion wrong a as answer this case in illustrates wrong assuming begets to courts have execute decrees municipal jurisdiction contempt in motor some vehicle cases. While cases in the Nine- early held that of in the was inherent Century power contempt teenth Matthews, all of courts statute v. N. H. 37 independently (State 450, 453; Towle, v. 42 N. H. the matter was put 540), 597, into focus 86 H. N. proper by Opinion Justices, of 602, оut, decided in “As it is law of 1933: pointed this state that the for to is an essential power punish contempt, a attribute of general jurisdiction.” sup- (Emphasis of is clear in the is inherent plied). power contempt as Courts courts of Supreme Superior jurisdiction. general
13 491:7, 19, 490:4; 20; RSA 498:1. Probate courts RSA RSA limited and so far as have only by special jurisdiction granted Const., II, Stone, 80; Pt. N. H. Art. Wood Legislature. Collins, 92 H. Protective Cheсk Writer Co. N. it was H. deemed advisable to N. Consequently, give pro- to decrees in 1911 bate courts issue contempt authority (Laws 1911, 129, s. was in c. which further extended 1957. Laws 1) 1957, 240 s. RSA 547:11 Seventh H. c. N. Report, (supp); Council (1958). Judiciаl courts, courts, like are courts limited Municipal probate and have the to issue decrees jurisdiction contempt 592-A:15 cases. RSA Laws c. only particular (supp); 8s. failure of a to answer а RSA (the party summons); courts, 165:19 powers support (contempt cases). Municipal courts, when as have broader acting juvenile contempt powers limited but are statute in the manner exeсution they 169:5; the extent RSA RSA punishment. 169:35 (supp); Laws c. s. the latter statute Interestingly enough limits the extent of the that the defendant punishment, provides defense,” shall “have reasonable time to make the trial shаll be “before a other than the one who issued judge the written order.” But there no statute municipal granting courts power motor vehicle cases and no contempt general statute them grаnting contempt the exercise of their powers criminal as jurisdiction mentioned cited except instances above. has fit seen to Legislature grant powers courts instances,
municipаl only limited none of which is to this case. I am applicable Since convinced that the municipal case, court has no I contempt power present do not reach discussed in questions the majority opinion. Duncan, Unlike the J., dissenting: district courts Massa chusetts which are courts of “superior general jurisdiction” Commonwealth, 424, 442, (Berlandi relied upon courts majority), of New Hampshire limited which does not jurisdiction, with it the inherent carry power also, *5 I concur in the foregoing opinion the Chief In
by so I would not it doing have appear Justice. I would concur if I believed majority opinion had court jurisdiction.
the municipal defendants which rise gave made by Misrepresentations when no action was pending occurred to contempt charges court, and “out of took place presence before the muniсipal of the interrogation 169:35 during (supp)) of the court” (RSA to court plead- no made representations police. silence made none by preserving nolo. Houghton ing of his constitutional thе exercise right self-incrimination. found, most it was at indirect be could
If contempt properly Oliver, Due S. 274-275. pro- re 333 U. See In trial be shall dictates of law such cess proceeding if it does not free from bias. This tribunal before a suggests than found to that some other require judge have conducted to fraud should proceedings. been subjected Goldfarb, 61 Mich. L. Rev. The Constitution Contempt, is the 169:35 “It 330-333. RSA right (supp) supra. Cf. as as the lot of citizen to be tried by judges impartial every 35th, I,Pt. Const. will admit.” Art. N. H. humanity of the transfer municipal express of “Whether Chretien had try question Judge unanswered by respondents contempt procеedings” goes Other majority, except by implication. pro- opinion likewise blems which surround criminal contempt proceedings unconsidered. The Constitution and Since Contempt, go supra. the view that the court had no I join jurisdiction case, in this there no occasion to here other issues. pursue