(Download) "Porter v. First Judicial Dist." by Supreme Court of Montana ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Porter v. First Judicial Dist.
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 16, 1950
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 63 KB
Description
1. Contempt ? How reviewed. The method for review of contempt is by writ of certiorari, the issuance of which is discretionary with the Supreme Court and is issued only when the tribunal making the judgment of contempt acted in excess of its jurisdiction. 2. Contempt ? Defamatory matters in complaint is indirect contempt. The filing with the clerk of the court of a complaint in a civil action containing a scandalous and defamatory matter is an indirect contempt requiring the filing of an accusatory affidavit and a hearing. 3. Courts ? Elements of jurisdiction. The elements of jurisdiction are cognizance of the subject matter, presence of the proper parties, and invoking of courts action by proper pleadings and a judgment within issues raised. 4. Contempt. The District Courts have power to punish for contempt. 5. Contempt ? Sufficiency of affidavit. In contempt proceeding, where sufficiency of the accusatory affidavit is questioned, allegations of facts must be accepted as admitted and true. 6. Contempt ? Filing of complaint constituted contempt. In contempt proceeding, where county attorneys accusatory affidavit specifically charged that accused filed a complaint containing false, malicious, untrue, libelous, defamatory and contemptuous matter concerning members of the grand jury and its prosecutor and that such a filing constituted contempt, and examination of complaint showed matter contained was scandalous, scurrilous and defamatory, and allegations whether true or false against lives and characters of members of grand jury, were so immaterial and irrelevant as to have no proper place in any pleading, filing of pleading constituted an abuse of process and was contemptuous. 7. Courts ? Power over records. A court has control of its own records and has power to protect them from scandalous papers not pertinent to the cause. 8. Contempt ? Supreme Court did not rule on validity of indictments. The Supreme Court in reviewing the contempt proceedings would not decide a question as to whether the presence of the special prosecutor in the grand jury room vitiated the indictments. - Page 448 9. Pleading ? Accusatory affidavit on information and belief proper. The county attorneys accusatory affidavit in indirect contempt proceeding was made on information and belief did not render affidavit insufficient. 10. Contempt ? Motion to dismiss grand jury properly denied. Where, during the contempt proceeding, the contemners sought to dismiss the grand jury, the court acted properly in denying the motions since the court in the contempt proceeding had no jurisdiction over the grand jury. 11. Contempt ? Mitigation. The truth or falsity of charges in complaint were immaterial and could not be considered in mitigation. 12. Contempt ? Advice of counsel, mitigation. The fact that contemner acted under advice of counsel is generally no defense to a proceeding for contempt, but that fact will be considered in mitigation of the offense, or the punishment therefor. 13. Contempt ? Costs. Where respondent district court was prevailing party in certiorari proceeding to review contempt proceeding, court was entitled to recover from relators its costs in action.