Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/82

 70 FEDERAL REPORTER. �and that the amount arrived at as a fine was not proved in a proper way. �Some points are made, on the part of the defendant, -which are taken by him as arising on the face of the proceedings : �(1) It is objected that the order of February 17, 1880, decreesonly "that the defendant isadjudgedto have commit- ted the contempt alleged," without reciting further the ofience of which he is guilty. It is insisted that this was necessary, and, further, that the order should have recited that the de- fendant had disobeyed a laivful order of the court, and was guilty of a contempt of court in so doing. The contempt alleged is set forth with sufficient particularity in the affida- vits on which the motion for attachment was founded, and in the report of the referee. AU the proceedings and the varions orders are sufficiently connected together by reference and recital to identify "the contempt alleged," without the neces- sity of reciting at length in the orders the particulars of the previous proceedings. The original motion was noticed as a motion for an attachment for contempt for a violation of the injunction, and the proceedings went on to ascertain that fact. The order of August 1, 1879, on its face, referred to the matter of a contempt of the injunction, and that is the "con- tempt" referred to in the orders of February 7th and 17th, and "the contempt alleged" spoken of in the latter order. It was not necessary to recite that the injunction was a lawful injunction. �(2) It is urged that the fine for contempt could not be im- posed by an order made in the suit, but that the order should have been made in a proceeding in the title of which the United States were made a party to the proceeding. It is said, in The People v. Craft, 7 Paige, 325, that in proceedings in equity between parties to the suit for contempt in not obeying the process of the court, or any order or decree in the cause, the proceedings on the attachment may be, and usually are, entitled as in the original suit, though it is not irregular to entitle them in the name of The People on the relation of the person prosecuting the attachment against the defendant or party proceeded against. Where the attachment proceed- ��� �