Paddon v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Paddon v. Superior Court

238 P. 1053, 73 Cal. App. 604, 1925 Cal. App. LEXIS 429

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJuly 14, 1925

DocketDocket No. 5368.

StatusPublished

This text of 238 P. 1053 (Paddon v. Superior Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Paddon v. Superior Court, 238 P. 1053, 73 Cal. App. 604, 1925 Cal. App. LEXIS 429 (Cal. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

It appears from the petition that William Locke Paddon was, on the fifth day of September, 1924, ad *605 judged guilty of contempt of court for having failed and neglected to obey a certain subpoena issued out of the superior court, in and for the city and county of San Francisco, state of California. (See Paddon v. Superior Court, 65 Cal. App. 34 [223 Pac. 91].)

The petition herein further recites that no penalty was imposed for such contempt until the tenth day of July, 1925, when the superior court ordered petitioner to be imprisoned in the county jail for a period of five days. It is here claimed that the judgment of contempt is void on its face, as it does not state or recite the facts constituting the contempt.

The judgment of commitment, however, which is not made a part of the record contains a full résumé of the facts and recites that petitioner was adjudged guilty of a contempt of said court committed in its immediate presence on the twenty-first day of May, 1923, and that the matter was, with the consent of petitioner, duly continued from time to time until the tenth day of July, 1925, for the purpose of sentence, at which time petitioner was ordered imprisoned, by the reason of his duly adjudged contempt of court, in the county jail of the-city and county of San Francisco for a period of five days.

Under these circumstances it cannot be said that the judgment and commitment are void.

The writ is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE COURT.

It appears from the petition that William Locke Paddon was, on the fifth day of September, 1924, ad *605 judged guilty of contempt of court for having failed and neglected to obey a certain subpoena issued out of the superior court, in and for the city and county of San Francisco, state of California. (See Paddon v. Superior Court, 65 Cal. App. 34 [223 Pac. 91].)

The petition herein further recites that no penalty was imposed for such contempt until the tenth day of July, 1925, when the superior court ordered petitioner to be imprisoned in the county jail for a period of five days. It is here claimed that the judgment of contempt is void on its face, as it does not state or recite the facts constituting the contempt.

The judgment of commitment, however, which is not made a part of the record contains a full résumé of the facts and recites that petitioner was adjudged guilty of a contempt of said court committed in its immediate presence on the twenty-first day of May, 1923, and that the matter was, with the consent of petitioner, duly continued from time to time until the tenth day of July, 1925, for the purpose of sentence, at which time petitioner was ordered imprisoned, by the reason of his duly adjudged contempt of court, in the county jail of the-city and county of San Francisco for a period of five days.

Under these circumstances it cannot be said that the judgment and commitment are void.

The writ is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 P. 1053, 73 Cal. App. 604, 1925 Cal. App. LEXIS 429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paddon-v-superior-court-calctapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack