State ex rel. Simard v. Fourth Judicial District Court
Montana Supreme Court
Original proceediug. Application for writ of certiorari to review action of district court in punishing relator for contempt. Statement of the case by the justice delivering the opinion: This is an application for a writ of certiorari to review the action of the fourth judicial district court in fining relator for an alleged contempt of court. Relator was attached for contempt, and a hearing was had, at which evidence was introduced.
Read the full summary
Original proceediug. Application for writ of certiorari to review action of district court in punishing relator for contempt. Statement of the case by the justice delivering the opinion: This is an application for a writ of certiorari to review the action of the fourth judicial district court in fining relator for an alleged contempt of court. Relator was attached for contempt, and a hearing was had, at which evidence was introduced. In the return to the writ of certiorari from this court, the papers, proceedings, and evidence which were before the district court, and upon which relator was…
1Opinion of the CourtDe Witt, J.
The respondent contends that this contempt proceeding is not reviewable in this court on certiorari, but that contention seems to be disposed of by the following eases: In re McCutcheon, 10 Mont. 115; In re Shannon, 11 Mont. 67; In re MacKnight, 11 Mont. 126; 28 Am. St. Rep. 451. We proceed to the merits of the application.
The statement of case above recites what the testimony before the court tended to prove, and, indeed, is conceded by the relator to be correct, except in one particular, which is not of great importance. We therefore review the situation, as recited, as that which was…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited3 opinions
- In re MacKnightMontana Supreme Court · 1891
- In re McCutcheonMontana Supreme Court · 1890
- In re ShannonMontana Supreme Court · 1891
3Cited by1 opinion
- State ex rel. Boyle v. District Court of the Second Judicial DistrictMontana Supreme Court · 1902