CANAL ZONE V. MURRAY.

CANAL ZONE versus JAMES MURRAY.
No. 82. Argued April 24, 1911. Decided May 1, 1911.
HABEAS CORPUS. CONTEMPT OF COURT. One improperly committed for contempt of court may have recourse to the
writ of habeas corpus to obtain his liberty.
CONTEMPT OF COURT. JURISDICTION. Under section 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure and section 131 of the Penal
Code, a District Judge is without jurisdiction to impose successive penalties for successive refusals to answer the same question. Such courts are of limited jurisdiction and can only act within the limitations of the laws defining their jurisdiction.
Application for writ of habeas corpus.
The facts appear in the opinion.
S. B. Dannis for petitioner. Charles R. Widiams foi respondent.
BROWN, J. This cause comes before this court on an application for a writ of habeas corpus and the return of the marshal of the Supreme Court to the defendant's petition.
It appears that on the 12th day of April, 1911, the defendant was tried in the District Court, District of Ancon, on the charge of disorderly conduct. During the course of the trial, while the defendant was voluntarily testifying in his own behalf, the District Judge propounded to him a material question which the defendant failed and refused to answer. Thereupon the District Judge summarily fined the defendant the sum of $3 as punishment for a contempt of court. Immediately thereafter, the District Judge again propounded to the defendant the same question which defendant had before refused to answer and upon defendant's second refusal to answer the District Judge summarily imposed a fine of $5 as punishment for a contempt of court. The like operation was repeated until, as appears from the amended commitment set out in the Marshal's return, the District Judge had imposed summarily upon the defendant fines aggregating $28 and jail sentences aggregating 48 hours, a "$3 fine for the first contempt of court and $5 fine each for the next three contempts, and $5 and 24 hours each for the next two contempts of court." Defendant having failed to pay said fines was thereupon committed to jail.
MR 36336-1l

161