The jurisdiction prescribed by congress for federal courts gives no, power to punish a newspaper publisher for contempt for criticising the conduct and integrity of the court ; Cnyler v. R. Co., 131 Fed. 95 ; ordi narily, however, newspapers can be so pun ished; where a statement of facts are pub lished which tend to influence a jury in a pending trial and such facts could not have been shown in evidence, such publication is a contempt; Telegram Newspaper Co. v. Com., 172 Mass. 294, 52 N. E. 445, 44 L. R. A. 159, 70 Am. St. Rep. 280; where a news paper article tends to prejudice the fair trial of a person who has been accused but has not yet been committed, it is a con tempt ; 67 J. P. 421; even an unintentional misstatement of the conclusion reached by the court is a contempt; In re Providence Journal Co., 28 R. I. 489, 68 Atl. 428, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 582, 125 Am. St. Rep. 755. Contempt is not the proper remedy against one who publishes a newspaper article re flecting on the conduct of a judge in the performance of his ministerial duties, the keeping of accounts, fees, etc.; Hamma v. People, 42 Colo. 401, 94 Pac. 326, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 621, 15 Ann. bas. 655. It is a contempt to publish any account, however meagre, and whether accurate or inaccu rate, of proceedings heard in camera; [1894] 3 Ch. 193.
Criticism of the manner in which trials are conducted cannot be punished unless it refers to some particular case pending be fore the court; Ex parte Green, 46 Tex. Cr. App. 576, 81 S. W. 723, 66 L. R. A. 727, 108 Am. St. Rep. 1035.
There may be contempt of court by scan dalizing the court itself ; by abusing parties concerned in causes ; by prejudicing man kind against persons before the cause is heard ; 2 Atk. 471; but fair criticism on the proceedings of a court when the case is over, can seldom be contempt of court; [1889] A. C. 549. There is no sedition in just criticism on the administration of the law, but it must be without malignity and not attribute corrupt and malicious motives ; 11 Cox 49.
A statement in a petition for re-hearing that the court's ruling is all wrong and written for political reasons is a contempt; In re Chartz, 29 Nev. 110, 85 Pac. 352, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 916, 124 Am. St. Rep. 915; but not to file a motion suggesting the disquali fication of the judge on the ground that he is related to parties having an interest in the suit; Johnson v. State, 87 Ark. 45, 112 S. W. 143, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 619, 15 Ann. Cas. 531. For a case holding in contempt a trial judge who had grossly attacked in print an appellate court who had twice re versed his judgment in a trial for rape, see In re Fite, 11 Ga. App. 665, 76 S. E. 397.
A federal court may punish for contempt one who interferes with a receiver in bank ruptcy appointed by it ; In re Wilk,, 155 Fed. 943; and contempts committed before its referee; United States v. Tom Wah, 160
Fed. 207; one accused of contempt is not entitled to a jury trial ; In re Fellerman, 149 Fed. 244; O'Flynn v. State, 89 Miss. 850, 43 South. 82, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1119, 119 Am. St. Rep. 727, 11 Ann. Cas. 530; a denial on oath of having committed a contempt raises an issue of fact for trial; Emery v. State, 78 Neb. 547, 111 N. W. 374, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1124;' either a municipal or business corpo ration may be fined for contempt where its officers and servants have violated an in junction; Marson v. City of Rochester, 112 App. Div. 51, 97 N. Y. Supp. 881; Franklin Union Na. 4 v. People, 220 Ill. 355, 77 N. E. 176, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1001, 110 Am. St. Rep. 248. A defendant in a divorce pro ceeding who refused to pay alimony may be punished by having his answer stricken from the record; Bennett v. Bennett, 15 OkL 286, 81 Pac. 632, 70 L. R. A. 864.
One cannot be guilty of contempt in refus ing to obey an order which the court has no power to make; McHenry v. State, 91 Miss. 562, 44 South. 831, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1062; Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, 28 Sup. Ct. 441, 52 L. Ed. 714, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 932, 14 Ann. Cas. 764. A decree for the payment of money may be enforced by contempt pro ceedings ; it is not imprisonment for debt; Jastram v. McAuslan, 29 R. 1. 390, 71 All 454, 17 Ann. Cas. 320. A decree that a trus tee pay over a specified sum in trust funds is enforceable by execution but not by con tempt; Mast v. Washtenaw Circuit Judge, 154 Mich. 485, 117 N. W. 1052. An unsuc cessful attempt to induce a third person to influence a jury does not constitute a con tempt ; U. S. v. Carroll, 147 Fed. 947; an assault committed on an attorney in a case by persons interested in the party opposed to him is a contempt, although committed outside the court room; U. S. v. Barrett, 187 Fed. 378; and so where proceedings in a criminal case are ordered to be stayed, and a mob, with knowledge of such order, takes the prisoner from jail and hangs him; T.J. S. v. Shipp, 203 U. S. 563, 27 Sup. Ct. 165, 51 LI Ed. 319, 8 Ann. Cas. 265; id., 214 U. S. 387, 29 Sup. Ct. 637, 53 L. Ed. 1041; a court may punish an attorney for contempt for wilfully absenting himself in a criminal case; In re Clark, 126 Mo. App. 391, 103 S.
W. 1105; In re McHugh, 152 Mich. 505, 116 N. W. 450; In re Clark, 208 Mo. 121, 106 S. W. 990, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 389.
The power of inferior courts to punish for contempt is usually restricted to contempts committed in the presence of the court; 3 Steph. Com. 342, n. 9; L. R. 8 Q. B. 134. A justice of the peace cannot punish con tempts, even committed before him, by sum mary proceedings ; Albright v. Lapp, 26 Pa. 99, 67 Am. Dec. 402 ; nor a committing magis trate for refusal to obey a subpoena; Farn ham v. Colman, 19 S. D. 342, 103 N. W. 161, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1135, 117 Am. St. Rep. 944, 9 Ann. Cas. 314.