Andrews v. Superior Court

KINCAID, J. pro tem.

*

Petition for writ of certiorari. By stipulation certified copies of the respective affidavits, documents and minutes are deemed to be the record of the proceedings and the return to the petition herein.

Petitioner, attorney for defendants O. L. daggers, D. B. daggers and The World Church, a corporation, in Ebson versus daggers et al., an action pending in the superior court, Number 719730, petitions this court for a writ reviewing the following “Minute Order in re Contempt” of the superior court made dune 6,1960: “Both citees are personally present. Bench warrants ordered issued May 31, 1960, are recalled. The court finds that the respondents O L daggers and D B daggers are not guilty of contempt of this order to show cause. The court finds that both respondents wilfully disobeyed the order of April 18, 1960, of which defendants had waived notice in open court. The court finds that the responsibility for not giving proper notice to his clients and for their failure to appear at deposition is on Willedd Andrews, their attorney. Pursuant to section 2034(B)2(IY) C. C. P. the court orders Willedd Andrews to personally pay to plaintiff’s attorneys the sum of $150.00 as reasonable expenses, including attorneys fees, not later than dune 10, 1960. O L daggers and D B daggers are ordered to appear on dune 8, 1960, at 2:00 P M for the taking of their depositions at . . .”

Petitioner alleges that on May 16, 1960, respondent court issued an order to show cause re contempt on taking a deposition based upon the declaration of the attorney for plaintiff in said action. On dune 6, 1960, the court, after considering the declarations of the respective parties including the declaration of the petitioner that he had notified defendants of the order previously made by the court for their appearance to give their depositions and the affidavits of defendants in support of said declaration, made its order holding petitioner to be in contempt as above set forth.

Petitioner further alleges that in the making of said order

in re

contempt, said court exceeded its jurisdiction in the

[758]

exercise of its judicial function and acted arbitrarily and in violation of the legal and equitable rights of petitioner.