Hallinan

Appellant appeared. as attorney for the defendant in a case entitled United States of America v. Bridges et al., D.C., 87 F.Supp. 14 . The action was tried in the United States District .Court for the Northern District of California, Southern Division, Honorable George B. Harris, District Judge, presiding.

During the course of the trial a judgment of contempt was rendered against appellant. . He appeals, and makes the following principal contentions:

1. The record does not show contempt.

2. That by waiting one day subsequent to the commission of the alleged contempt, the Court lost its power to punish summarily under Rule 42(a), Federal Rules of 'Criminal Procedure, 18 U^S.C.A., but could proceed only on notice and hearing under Rule 42(b). Furthermore, since the matter is properly under Rule 42(b), the Court was disqualified to pronounce judgment.

The trial Court filed a certificate setting forth the facts on which it based the judgment of contempt, in conformity to the requirements of Rule 42(a). Consideration of the questions involved requires a rather lengthy statement of the conclusions reached by the Court and the references to the record, as set forth in the…