Hughes v. Territory of Arizona

Citations

• 10 Ariz. 119
• 85 P. 1058
• 1906 Ariz. LEXIS 109

Syllabus

<p>1. Contempt — Punishment—Power of Court; — Not Abridged by Statute — Rev. Stats. Ariz. 1901, Pen. Code, Seos. 3, 11, 162, 621, and Civil Code, Pars. 1223, 1237, Construed. — Section 3, supra, providing that no act or omission commenced after this code takes effect as a law shall he criminal or punishable except as prescribed herein; section 162, supra, making every person guilty of contempt of court in certain enumerated instances guilty of a misdemeanor but not making publication in a newspaper concerning a pending causo one of these, taken in connection with section 11, supra, which provides that the code does not affect any power conferred by law on any tribunal to inflict punishment for contempt; section 021, supra, providing “A criminal act is not the less punishable as a crime because it is also declared to be punishable as a contempt;” and paragraphs 1223, 1237, supra, conferring on district courts original and appellate jurisdiction and in addition to the power conferred by statutes, the power to proceed according to the course of the common law; when construed together, show that the legislature did not by sections 3 or 162, supra, abridge the power of the court to punish for a criminal contempt.</p> <p>2. Same — Title of Proceedings — Not Jurisdictional. — The title of the petition in a prosecution for criminal contempt is not jurisdictional, hence a failure to entitle the petition in the name of the territory, did not render the proceedings of the court void.</p> <p>3. Same — Samis.—The better form in proceedings in contempt is to entitle them, “In the matter of the proceedings against--, for contempt of court,” rather than in the name of the territory.</p> <p>4. Same — Petition—Allegations on Information and Belief — Sufficiency. — In a petition in criminal contempt an allegation on information and belief that defendant was the proprietor and editor of the paper and published articles concerning pending causes was sufficient to put defendant to his de