People ex rel. Pond v. Tamsen

—The court of common pleas had jurisdiction to issue the warrant of attachment under which the relator is held to answer for an alleged contempt. The objection to the form of the attachment, that it does not recite the contempt, or any of the proceedings upon, which the warrant rests, is untenable. The relator, it must be assumed, for it is not denied, was served with a copy of the affidavit upon which the warrant was issued, and he was, therefore, sufficiently apprised of the nature of the charge made against him. The cases cited by counsel for the relator are not applicable. They relate to final commitments. Seaman v. Duryea, 11 N. Y. 324 ; Dunford v. Weaver, 84 id. 452 . The warrant in question is merely process by which the relator is brought into court to answer a charge. He is then fully appraised of the charge, and admitted to make a defense if he has any. Code Civ. Proc. § 2280. There is nothing in the Code which requires any recitals in the warrant, nor is it understood to-be the practice to insert them in such cases. At best, it was not a jurisdictional defect; and for that reason, if there were no other, the court will refuse to review the mandate of another court of general jurisdiction on habeas corpus. Park v. Park, 80 N. Y. 156 .

6A further objection, made by the relator, is that the judgment he is accused of disobeying can be enforced by execution, and that, under subdivision 3 of section 14 of the Code, he cannot, therefore, be held to answer for a contempt. This should be addressed to the court of common pleas. The answer, however, is complete. Code Civil Proc. § 1241, subd. 4, provides that a. person disobeying a judgment of the court which requires the payment of money into court, or to an officer -of the court, except

The writ of habeas corpus is therefore dismissed, and the relator remanded to the custody of the sheriff