In re Maury

(after stating the facts as above). [1] It is alleged by the plaintiff in error that the District Court erred in rendering judgment against him for the reason that that court was without jurisdiction to summarily punish for contempt.

Section 725 of the Revised Statutes (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 583), from which the power of the federal courts in matters of contempt is derived, reads as follows; ■ ,

In Ex parte Robinson, 86 U. S. (19 Wall.) 505, 510 ( 22 L. Ed. 205 ), Mr. Justice Field, referring to the power of the federal courts to punish for contempt, and construing section 725 of the Revised Statutes, said:

In Ex parte Terry, 128 U. S. 289, 302 , 9 Sup. Ct. 77, 79 ( 32 L. Ed. 405 ). the petitioner had been adjudged guilty of contempt by the ETiited States Circuit Court for the Northern District of California. Mr. Justice Harlan, delivering the opinion of the court, said:

[2] But the plaintiff in error insists that the words spoken were not contemptuous under any reasonable construction. With this we can - not agree. In addressing to the jury the abusive and disrespectful language set forth above, the plaintiff in error, in our opinion, committed a grave breach of the duty…