752
FEJ;lERAL REPORTER,
voL 41.
';'
,
'
In , .' " .' . .' I ' . \ , , "
SOWLES. .: - " '
athtit, D. Vemwnt.
lalluary 'D, 1800;) ' . _ -. ." '; -
. by repre-
Cc)NTEMPT--'-lNmbuNoB ,tq
"idders. at the execution sale that the writ is blVaUd, and that any OIllt purchasintt 'at lIuoh sale would be suell by him, is guilty otcont8mp1i. ,
An attorijlil}';who resist, We enforcement-of a lawful writ
wlmEXECUTIO'N SAtE-ATTORNEY.
'.'1/
,At lAW. Ji'rarat Pl'lJRrlley,:U. S.: 'Atty., for prosecution. "Henry Kittredge Haskins,- fotrespondent. I,
j
i.!
iI'hisie; a proceeding for the punishroont'oftlte respondtbt)·iltiihority ofthis'cotIrt byresisti'ngtbe of Ii. judgment renderedin this court against the re. spondent's wife. ,Section 72f5 of the Revised;, Statutes declares the power , oi'tl1e c<>urtauf the United States to punish by fine and imprisonment
.
WHEE'LEti,
STATE V. TUTTY.
753
contemptfl of their authority by disobedience or resistance to any lawful writ or process of theirs, among others. That this was a lawful writ of execution and process of this court is not disputed. That the ent, by printed circulars and by words, represented to bidders and ob· servers that it was irregular and invalid; and so in respect to matters which 'did not in fact and which they could not know of; and that anyone purchasing under it would be sued by him, and involved in pr<r tracted'litigation, fully appears. This is said to have been done vertently, to avoid seeming acquiescence in alleged irregularities of the proceedings and disposition of the property levied up<>n. The plain effect of the proofs is that more than this was intended. The clear intention. to defeat the operation of the execution by deterring bidders from purchasing is 'This was a resistance oLthe process, .and es· ,pecially.so, in view of the fact that the respondent is an experienced atacting as such in the proceedings. Upon these considerations the respondent must be adjudged guilty of contempt oithe authority of this oourt resistance to that process.. In the case, of In re Ohiles, 22 Wall. 157"the respondentwllS adjudged guilty ofcontempt of an injuncUnited States by giving notice in Eng, tionoftpe land ofaclaim ,to bonds which were the subjects oftbeinjunction. A due'respect for the administration of justice requires the process of courts to be obeyed. Such conduct as the respondent is shovvn to have been guilty of cannot, with propriety, be lightly passed over. The punishment by imprisonment will not, in view of the confessions and apologies of the respondent,be imposed. In the axu of Chiles a fine of $250 was impo{l9d by the supreme court, with costs. This case is quite as aggravated as that, but the costs here are probably greater than 'The respondent is adjudged guilty of contempt of the authority of this cotirtby resistance to the execution, and is thereupon ordered to pay a,firie of $200 to the United States, with thecoets of .this proceed. ing, 850 for January 2, 1890, and to stand committed to the'custody of the marshttI until the fine and costa are paid. r,
STATE V. TUTTY
et ale 1890.)
(Circuit Oourt, S. D. Georgia, E. D. 1. HAR1U-i.e. BETWEEN WU1TE PERSON
By policy ot the state of Georgia, relations between white persons and persons of African descent are forever prohIbited, and by the statutes of the state suoh marriages are declared null and void. .
NEGRo-STA'rUTBS Oll' GBORGI.l.
These statutes have been held to be in accordance with the constitution by the supreme appellate tribunal of the state. ' ,
LAW.
.'
v.41F.no.13-48