People v. Latimer

THE COURT.

This is a proceeding in

certiorari

to review an order made by the respondent, discharging and dissolving an attachment against the person of E. L. Bickford issued in a contempt proceeding.

On August 7, 1909, the chairman of the board of supervisors of the county of Napa made and filed with the clerk of the superior court of said county, and presented to the Honorable H. T. Gesford, the judge of said superior court, a verified certificate of facts. That certificate showed that on August 5, 1909, the board of supervisors of said county, sitting as a board of equalization, had before it for consideration and action the matter of directing the assessor of said county to assess to one H. A. Crawford, a resident of said county, taxable property owned by said Crawford at 12 o’clock meridian on the first Monday in March, 1909, which had escaped taxation; that previously, and on the sixteenth day of July, 1909, the clerk of the said board of supervisors, upon the order of said board, sitting as a board of equalization, had notified the said Crawford by letter, postpaid, and deposited in the post-office at Napa, which was his place of residence, that said board would, on July 22, 1909, investigate the matter of directing the assessor of Napa County to assess to him any taxable property owned by him at 12 o’clock meridian on the first Monday in March, 1909, and which had escaped taxation; that the investigation of said matter was continued from time to time until August 5, 1909, when it was taken up by said board of equalization for action; that at the said time E. L. Bickford was duly sworn as a witness, and after testifying that he was the cashier of the First National Bank of Napa, and knew whether or not said H. A. Crawford had any money on deposit in said bank at 12 o’clock meridian on said first Monday of March, 1909, was asked the following question: “Did H. A. Crawford have any money on deposit in the First National Bank of Napa on the first Monday in March, 1909, at 12 o’clock meridian?” that said E. L. Bickford refused to answer said question, and thereupon the board, having de

[719]

termined that the question was proper and pertinent, directed the chairman of said board to require the witness to answer it; that the chairman of said board directed said witness to answer the question, but he again refused to do so; that the board thereupon unanimously declared that said witness be deemed in contempt for his refusal to answer, and directed the chairman of the board to report the facts to the judge of the superior court of Napa County, that such proceedings might be taken in said matter as required by law.