Ex Parte Rowe
California Supreme Court
It appears from the return of the sheriff, that the prisoner was committed by the Court of Sessions of Sacramento county for a contempt of Court, in refusing to answer certain questions propounded to him by the grand jury. It is objected to the warrant of commitment, first. That it does not show that the prisoner was again required by the Court to answer, after refusing to answer before the grand jury. Second. That the questions propounded are not set forth.
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
In reference to the first objection, it would certainly seem to be more regular again to propound the questions by the Court, and then, upon the refusal of the witness to answer, to make the order of commitment. But this objection does not seem to be of sufficient force to require this Court to discharge the prisoner.
The second objection brings up the question, whether this Court can review, on writ of habeas corpus, the decision of an inferior Court in a case of contempt. If the decision of such inferior Court in a ease of contempt be final and conclusive, then *182there is no propriety or…
2Cited by18 opinions
- Overend v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- In Re BattelleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
- Ex Parte ClarkeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- In Re ShortridgeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907
- State ex rel. Rankin v. District CourtMontana Supreme Court · 1920
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.