This matter comes before us on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petition states that the petitioner is unlawfully imprisoned, detained, confined, and restrained of his liberty by Frank Barnett, sheriff of the county of Alameda, state of California, at the county jail in the city of Oakland, county of Alameda, state of California, by virtue of an order of the superior court of the state of California in and for the county of Alameda, adjudging petitioner in contempt of court for a violation of an order of said court and in interfering with the processes of said court. Petitioner alleges that the order committing said Robert Jarvis is in excess of the jurisdiction of said superior court; that the said affidavit or complaint upon which the original proceeding is based is insufficient in that said affidavit fails to allege that the said Robert Jarvis had any knowledge that said Katrina Wassman was a jury-woman in the case then before said court at said time, and further, that said Robert Jarvis had any knowledge of any orders issued to said jurymen in said matter, or intended to violate any orders or proceedings of said court; that said affidavit wholly fails to state that said Robert Jarvis intended or did influence the decision of said jury-woman or said jury in any manner whatsoever or at all; further, that the evidence introduced upon the hearing of said contempt proceedings wholly fails to substantiate the charge set forth in said affidavit in whole or in part.

The affidavit in the contempt proceedings was made by Katrina Wassman, who was serving as a juror in a case then pending before the superior court of Alameda County, and, omitting the title and prayer of the affidavit, it is as follows:

Upon this affidavit this matter came on regularly to be heard before the superior court, and after many witnesses, together with the petitioner, were examined in open court, and after hearing the arguments of counsel, the court made findings of fact and an order of commitment as follows:

We think that the facts found by the court are amply sufficient to sustain the charge of contempt of court, and the only question in the case is as to the sufficiency of the affidavit to give the court jurisdiction. While it is true there is no express averment in the affidavit that petitioner knew that Mrs. Wassman was a juror in the case before the court, nor an express averment that petitioner intended to influence the decision of said juror, we think upon the face of the affidavit the knowledge of petitioner that Mrs. Wassman was a juror and the intention of petitioner to influence her decision in the matter then pending before the jury sufficiently appear. The affidavit shows that petitioner was the complaining witness in the case pending before the court; that on the same day that he gave his testimony in the case he followed the juror Wassman from the courthouse across Broadway Street, where she was seated in an automobile, and stated to said juror: “You fellows should acquit that fellow.” As was said in Ex parte Creely, 8 Cal. App. 713, 719 [ 97 Pac. 766, 768 ]: “It was not necessary for the affidavit on which the proceedings were based to state any more than the facts, and they appear to be fully stated. The fact that the petitioner called out to the jury in a distinct tone of voice, ‘Don’t convict my friend Ruef,’ appears to be all the fact that could be stated. No one but petitioner could look into his mind and tell the intent, object, and purpose of the remark. The remark itself from its very language tends to establish that petitioner knew Ruef was on trial, that the jury to whom the remark was made had charge of the ease, and the power to either convict or acquit. Petitioner saw the jury and the deputy sheriffs in charge of them—four in number—and knew that Ruef was being tried. He must be presumed to have intended the ordinary consequences of his own deliberate act.” So in the instant matter, the language set forth in the affidavit, “You fellows should acquit that fellow,” can convey no other meaning than that the person to whom it was addressed was a juror in the case, and the language clearly shows an intention to' influence the decision of the juror. The cases cited by petitioner do not overrule Ex parte Creely, supra, and under the authority of that case the affidavit was sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court, and the findings of the court show a clear case of contempt.

The writ is discharged and the prisoner remanded to the custody of the sheriff of Alameda County.

Sturtevant, J., and Nourse, J., concurred.