In Re Salkin

THE COURT.

The question submitted to this court for its determination herein is whether imprisonment of petitioner in the county jail of the county of Los Angeles for a longer period than one year is legal, where it appears that such imprisonment has resulted from an order made by the trial court by reason of its adjudication of the guilt of petitioner in a contempt proceeding to the effect that, because of the continued neglect and refusal of petitioner to comply with a former judgment made by said court in an action wherein petitioner was ordered to divide equally between himself and the plaintiff in said action all community property of the parties to said action which was in the possession of the petitioner, he be confined in the county jail of the county of Los Angeles “until he shall have complied with said judgment, ...”

It will thus be noted that petitioner was not committed for any fixed period of time as punishment for the commission of the contempt of court of which he was guilty, but that his authorized imprisonment therefor was only as long as he continued in his disregard and refusal to obey the order of the court. In other words, by virtue of his own future conduct in the premises, either in failing to comply, or in complying, with the judgment of the court, his term of imprisonment began and ended.

As far as is pertinent to this inquiry, section 19a of the Penal Code provides that “in no ease shall any person sentenced to confinement in a county or city jail on conviction of misdemeanor, or as a condition of probation, or for any reason, be committed for a period in excess of one year.

J?

On the other hand, the power of the court in the premises is attested by the ruling in the case of

Burns

v.

Superior Court,

140 Cal. 1 [73 Pac. 597], wherein it was held that, aside from statutory authority therefor, a court of general jurisdiction has inherent power to punish for contempt

[438]

persons who obstruct or interfere with its authority; and in