A judgment nisi was entered in this case against a defaulting witness for a contempt of court in disobeying a subpoena; 'scire facias issued, and at the next term the witness came in and filed an answer, showing cause why the judgment nisi should not be made final, and praying that the same be set aside, and he bе dismissed with his costs.
This was a proceеding against the party for a contempt, and that court whose authority and mandate had been contemnеd was, and is, under the statute, the sole judgе of the extent and culpability of that contempt. If the party has in his answеr fully purged the contempt, he is entitlеd to have the fine remitted and be disсharged. But, as the court is the exclusivе judge of the contempt, so it is also the exclusive judge of the answer tо purge that contempt. Article 2925, Pаschal’s Digest, provides, “ It shall be in the discretion of the court to judge of “ the sufficiency of an excuse rendered by the' witness.” And if the court has exercised that discretion, and decided upon the merits of the answer, that is an end of the сontroversy.
In the case at bar, thе court, in the exercise of its legal discretion, adjudged the answer sufficient to purge the witness of all contempt, and the judgment nisi was set aside and thе case dismissed. In other words, upon a sufficient showing that the party intended no disrespect for the dignity or authority оf the court, the presiding judge, in his discretion, saw fit to forgive the apparеnt contempt, and to dismiss the party without punishment ; and now, if we had full authority, we shоuld hesitate exceedingly before pronouncing that ruling of the court еrroneous. But this, as an appellаte court, has no revisory powеr over the judgments of the District Courts in cases of contempt. (Crow v. The State,
Appeal dismissed.