Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/80

 68 FEDERAL EBPOBTER. �ment." On the eleventh of May, 1880, the defendant sued ont a writ of error from the supreme court of the United States to reverse the said judgment convicting him of a con- tempt. The plaintiff moved in that court to dismiss said writ of error, and the supreme court dismissed it for want of jurisdiction on the twenty-ninth of November, 1880. The plaintiff now, on presenting to this court the mandate of the supreme court dismissing said writ, moves for an order that the said order of March 13, 1880, be carried into effect; and the defendant at the same time moves that the said order of Pebruary 17, 1880, and the said order of March 13, 1880, be declared inoperative and void, and of no efiect, or that the plaintiff be perpetually restrained and enjoined from any further action or proeeeding respecting the same. �It is provided by section 725 of the Eevised Statutes that the courts of the United States shall have power to punish, "by fine or imprisonment, at the discretion of the court, con- tempts of their authority : provided, that such power to pun- ish contempts shall not be construed to extend to any cases except the misbehavior of any person in their presence, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, the misbehavior of any of the officers of said courts in their officiai transactions, and the disobedience or resistance by any such officer, or by any party, juror, witness, or other per- son, to any lawful writ, process, order, rule, deoree, or com- mand of the said courts." �It is contended for the defendant that to render effectuai a judgment or order convicting a party of contempt, founded on his disobedience to an order of the court, three things must concur: (1) The order must be founded upon some legal or equitable right vested in the party at whose instance it is issued; (2) the order must be lawful and duly author- ized at the time it issues; (3) the disobedience to it must be wilful. �It is well settled that contempt of court is a specifie crim- inal offence, and that the imposition of a fine for a contempt is a judgment in a criminal case. New Orleans v. Steam- ship Co. 20 Wall. 387, 392. Although there bas as yet been ��� �