Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/86

 74 FEDERAL REPORIER. �where a statute imposes a fine, the power to commit a person convicted of the statutory offence to jail until the fineis paid is an inherent power in the court. �In United States v. Kellerman, 23 Int. Eev. Eec. 202, the defendant was convicted on an indictment, and seutenced to pay a fine and the costs of the prosecution, and to stand com- mitted until said fine and costs be paid, -and to be imprisoned for one month. After the defendant had suffered the impris- onment for one month he sued out a writ of liabeas corpus. The statute authorized the imposition of a fine and costs, and of imprisonment for a specified time, but said nothing about commitment until the fine and costs should be paid. The court held that the judgment for commitment was proper, and that, as the fine and costs had not been paid, the de- fendant was rightfully in custody. �The foregoing cases were not cases of contempt of court, but, as a fine for a contempt of court is a judgment in a criminal case, the same rule applies. �In In re Mullee, 7 Blatchf. 23, the party was fined for con- tempt in violating an injunction restraining the infringement of a patent, and was ordered to stand committed until the fine should be paid. �In In re Allen, 13 Blatchf. 271, the party had disobeyed an order of court requiring him to produce and surrender certain books and papers. He was adjudged guilty of contempt, and was ordered to deliver them up and to pay the costs, and, upon refusai, to be committed to custody by the marshal until dis- charged by order of the court. On habeas corpus it was urged that the imprisonment was illegal because it was to continue during the pleasure of the court. The court say : "When the contempt consist of a violation of the order of the court, and is a contempt not committed in its presence, and the statute does not prescribe the form of the order of com- mitment, the defendant may be imprisoned until he be dis- charged by order of the court, or until further order of court. Green v. Elgie, 8 Jurist, part 1, p. 187, par Denman, 0. J.; opinion of Chief Justice Kent in In re Yates, e John. 317; S. C. 9 John. 395. Chief Justice Kent, in In re Yates, ��� �