Brune v. Superior Court

KNIGHT, J.

The petitioner Herman W. Bruñe was adjudged guilty of contempt by the Superior Court for failure to pay certain sums of money for the support and maintenance of his wife and his minor child as directed by the terms' of an interlocutory decree of divorce theretofore entered in the divorce action; and he seeks in this proceed

[23]

ing in

certiorari

to have the judgment of contempt annulled, it being alleged in his petition, as grounds for the issuance of the writ, that no testimony was taken at the hearing of the contempt proceeding to substantiate the averments of the affidavits initiating the contempt proceedings; and that petitioner was precluded from introducing testimony showing his inability to comply with said decree or that the amount of the alleged arrearage was incorrect.

As frequently held, in a proceeding such as this, the reviewing court is restricted to a consideration of the single question of whether the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction; and even though it appear that, during the hearing or in the determination of the matter before it, the trial court may have erred to the prejudice of the petitioner, either in matters of fact or matters of law, relief may not be afforded through the medium of a writ of review

(White

v.

Superior Court,

110 Cal. 60 [42 Pac. 480, 481]). In the case cited the court goes on to say: “The question being purely one of power, the mere manner in which the contempt proceeding was tried, the rulings of the court upon the admissibility of evidence, and kindred matters, are things wholly without the range of our investigation. Nor can we look into the evidence to inquire as to its sufficiency to sustain the finding and conclusion of the superior court. If the court had jurisdiction, and the recitals of the judgment or order are sufficient to sustain it, those recitals are conclusive upon us in this proceeding. We are confined to the record. ‘If the order is one which the court had power to make, it is not for us to inquire whether this power was properly exercised or not. The writ of review is not a writ of error.’