Jurisdictional Statement — Pulley v. Pulley

apie me Office-Supreme Court, US. Ff

- ‘FIL&D

1, eee ORIRY “9.

"\* SUPRST" COURT. U, Be PA 31 Ps.

eee eee SOHN F. DAVIS, CLERK -

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES |

OCTOBER TERM, 1962

HELEN ELIZABETH PULLEY,

v. \

CHARLIE HERBERT PULLEY,

Appellee,

Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE SUPKEME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

%

STATEMENT AS TO JURISDICTION

tl.

Guy Exuiort

Counsel for Appellant,

. Kinston, North Carolina.

clones, Reep & Guirriy, | ;

Kinston, North Carolina,

» Counsel,

©e -

INDEX ° ;

af ; Page

Statement as to Jurisdiction —s_« tat

“ga Opinions Below ; : ee 1

-* Jurisdiction " Piper Bae Aer ie, re a

"Questions Presented ° oe eae ee

es Statement of the Case . : ~ 4%

The Questions Presented are Substantial et eee, 9

- Conclusion — - abe eke wee WwW

Appendix |. aon a oe 11

| TABLE ‘OF. Cases .

_ Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Public Utilities Com-

— mission of California, 346 U.S. 346: “?2

Blackburn vy. State of Alabama, 361 U.S. 199 ies

Helen’ Elizabeth Pulley v. ( ‘harlie Herbert Pulle :

255 NC 423. ....-..; .: 1, 2, 7.-

Metlakatla: Indian Community Anette. Island Re- -

serve v. Egan, 363 U_8,,-535- Be

1

!

. MISCELLANEOUS gs

Sections 16 and 17 of Article T of the Constitution’ -

‘of North Carolina, ua? 3, 4, 8,9, 10

Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the.

United States 3,4.8 .

Chapter 95 of the Piblic Laws of the 1947 Session Aan

of the Legislature of Nérth Carolina. Cate SEAR

Section 1257(2),-Title 28, United States. Code ———«s 0)

United States Sapreme Court Rules 13 and 15. _ mre

“ / : . °

Vee ae .

? : ' t

—3186-4

\

| page 423.’

IN THE

‘SUPREME: COURT OF THE ‘UNITED STATES

y

OCTOBER. TERM, 1962

\

= ’ cs f

No. \

HELEN ELIZABETH PULLEY,

wv. ; Apt eller, 7

¢ HARLIE HERBERT PU LLEY, fas ;

| “Appeiant

- * _

APPEAL FROM THE 5U1/’REME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

’

=

STATEMENT Ag TO: JURISDICTION |

The appellént, pursuant to United States Supreme C court

“Rules 13 and 15, files ‘this his’statement of.the basis ‘Upon

_ which it is contended that the: Supreme Court i the United:

States has jurisdiction on a diréct appeal to review the’

' final ‘judgment of the Supretiie Court of aig cf Carolina |

entered in the abov e-captioned case on March 28 28, 1962. -

ies ise , Opinions Below |

The opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of North ;

~ Carolina filed October 11, 1961, in the action entitled “Helen

Elizabeth Pulley v. Charlie Herbert Pulley”, is reported in

North Caroling Supreme Court Reports, Volume 255, at

QQ

°&

° :

.

i Ee

__. The opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of North

. Carolina filed March 28, 1962, in the. action entitled ‘*Helen

Ekzabeth Pulley v. Charlie Herbert Pulley”’, is ‘reported i in.

North Carolina Supreme-Court Reports, Volume 256, at .

page 600. ~ ‘

“ aoe Sarisdiction

- The appeal herein is from a final elas entered. by

the Supreme Court of North Carolina adjudging the appel-

lant. in contempt of court for his willful failure and re- .

" -fusal-to comply with the judgment of the Clerk of the Su-

périor Court of Onslow County entered = the confession ;

--of judgment of the appellant. | ;

The final judgment appealed from was éntered on March

28, 1962.. Notice of ppeal was filed.i in the Suprente Court,

of North Carolina on May 30, 1962. ; ; 5

The Supreme Court of the United States has juchadbon

_ to-review by direct appeal the judgment complained of ied :

thé provisions of 28 USCA § 1257(2). eerste

‘The following decisions are bélieyed to sustain the juris-

diction of the Supreme Court to review the judgment on

direct appeal in this case. Atchison, T. €.S. F. Ry. Co. v.

~ ‘Public Utilities Commission of California, 346 U. S., 346;

_ Metlakatle Indian Community Annette Island Reserve wv.

_ Egan, 363 U. S., 555; minckoure v. State of ifehomn, oe.

U.S. 199.

The statute of the State of North Carolina which i is in- |

volved is G. S. 1-247, and reads as follows ;

‘‘A judgment by confession: ‘may be entered without

action either in or out of term, either for money due or

to become due, or to secire any person against con-

_tingent liability. on behalf of the ‘defendant; or both,

2 ites 4n.the manner prescribed by this article.

‘k ngnent by emer caid may be enteréd for alimony

s ~- >

a

Se Arie Simkate satay

or for support*of minor children, and when the\same

shall have been entered as provided by this article,

judgment shall be binding upon the deferidant,,

requiréd by such judgment, shall, upon proper. eauise

_ may be adjudged by the’ court as in any other sas of”

contempt of its orders, subject to authority: of the court \

to modify said judgment thereafter for proper cause

shown as provided by law in case of, adverse judg-

ments in proceedings for such alimony or support.’’

¥ “Questions Presented.

The following questions are presented by this wedi:

(1) Does the- Order of his Honor, Bong, J., entered in the

above-entitled action committing the defendant, Charlie —

* Herbert Pulley, to jail as a means of enforcement ‘of the ©

“Confession of Judgment”? and “Judgment?” entered-on->

'- July 11,, 1958, in ‘the office of the Clerk of the Superior

Court of Onslow County, violate the: rights of the defendant,

Charlie Herbeft Pulley, guaranteed to him under Sections.

16 and 17 of Article 1 of the Constitution of North Carolina?

(2) Does the Order-of his Honor, Bong, J., entered i in the

above-entitled action, committing the defendant Charli? |

Herbert Pulley, to. jail as a means of enforcement of “Con-

fession of Judgment”’ and ‘J udgment*’, entered on July 11,

1958, in the i 28 of the. Clerk-of the Superior Court of

Onslow County, violate the rights of the defendant, ( ‘harlie.

Herbert Pulley, guaranteed to him under the terms and pro-

‘visions-of. the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution

of the United States’?

_ (3) Is Chapter 95 of the Public Laws of the 1947 Ses- -

- sion of the Legislature of North Carolina, which provides

for the enforcement of confessions of judgment for ali-

.

shown to the court, subject him to such petfalti¢s as z , 7

f

— i

- fo. ‘ aS _ 8 e ea : woe * : agin -

mony through contempt proteedings, in vidlation of the

‘rights and privileges guaranteed the defendant, Charlie —

- Herbert Pulley, under the.terms and -provisiofis of Sec-

-. ‘tions. 16 and 17 of Article 1 of the Constitution of North

Carolina, and the Fourteenth Amendinent to the Constitu-

tion of the United States, specifically the second sentence

. of Section 1. of said Amendment, Tendering the said Act

. of ‘the Legislature void. _ of no ‘legal force and effect? |

~ Statement of the Cage |

On July 11, 1958, the defendant. signed a ‘<Confession.-

of Judgment” before hjs Honor, W. F. Justice, Clerk of. -

the Superior Court of Onslow County, and upon which gs

- said Clerk of*the Superior cone entered ‘J udgment”? a

the same date. (R. pp. 1-4). ———

; On July-14, 1958, the “above- sae plaintif oi defend-

ag ant executed between themselves a: Deed of ‘Separation. °

: ‘(R. pp. 18 02). The portion: of the. Deed of Separation

relating to the ‘‘Confession of, f, Fadgment’” and Fade:

ment””, ‘i ‘is as follows: wee e

‘*AND Wreneas, the said backend has agreed. to ide

a provision ‘for. the support and maintenance of the. said

wife ‘and ‘to. that end has this date confessed judgment.

before. the Clerk of the Superior Court of Onslow County, ;

‘North Carolina, wherein he acknowledged an obligation

- to support the said wie and. thas consented that a judg-

ment be entered against him that he pay to the said wife the

- sum of Sixty-Two Dollars and Fifty Cents ($62.50) ‘on

the 3rd — 18th day of each and every succeeding _—.

hereafter. (RR: p. 19) |

Tn the ‘Confession of Judgment’’ it is stated that— |

. the defendant inj/the- above-entitled action, do

eae confess j ent and authorize entry thereof, ©

eee ; ; ; '

ne

~~ and it is decreed :

aan

>.

subject to further order of court as-in such cases by -.

Jaw made and provided, in favor. of Helen’ Elizabeth

Pulley of Onslow County, North Carolina, the plain-

tiff herein, in the form of alimony ingthe sum of Sixty--

two Dollars and Fifty Cents ($62.50) on the 3rd and é

- 18th -of each and every month hereafter from the. —

3rd day of July 1958, for her maintenance and sup- 4

port”’. 5 PP. 1-2)

ry ©

-*

The: facts recited i in the “ey udgment’’, ifi part, state:

° -

. that the defendant is ‘desirous of making pro-

vision : tee the support and maintenance of the plain-

tiff and to that end has authorized,the- entry: of judg eae

—-ment that the defendant_pay: to the plaintiff the sunr.

. of Séxty-Two Dollars and Fifty Cents gn the 3rd and

18th days of each and ev ery nionth from the 3rd day -

of: July, 1958, as an obligation justly due by’ the de-*

fendant to -the plaintiff for her, ——* and mainte-

nance ;”" (R. p. 3), ; . fe sree

,*

?

“Now, Paxanious, ‘upg n 1 the confession of the de: .

fendantentered of record in this cause and under the.

authority of and ‘according to the terms of Section ’

_ 1-247; ‘Article 24, Chapter 1. of the General Statutes

of North Carolina, Ir 1s Orverep, ApsupcEeD anp. DE-

creep that Helen Elizabeth Pulley, the plaintiff herein,’

have and recover of Charlie Herbert Pulley, the de-

fendant herein, the sum of Sixty-Two Dollars and

Fifty Cents. ($62.50) on the 3rd and 18th of each and

every month from the 3rd day of July,. 1958, for her

maintenance and support, together with the coste~Or

this. action.”’ ‘(B. p. 3). eee i °

|

‘

pale

' ‘The defendant paid to his wife the sum of $62.50 on the -

3rd and 18th of each month from July 3, 1958, to Decem-

ber 3, 1960. (R. p. 5). ‘

' On August 8, 1960, the defendant instituted a suit against

the above-named plaintiff in the Johnston County Re-

corder’s and -Domestic Relations Court for an absolute

divorge“nupon the ground of two years separation. (RR.

pp. 20-26)»

The above-named plaintiff filed answer in the Sieots ” 8

“suit (R. pp. 26-29), and later elected not to contest the

case, and decree of absolute divorce was entered by said

Court on Noyember 30, 1960, (R. pp. 30-32),

The above-named plaintiff filed a motion-in the above-

“entitled action under date of January 6, 1961, for an order

requiring the defendant to appear at a time and place to

be designated by. the Court and-show cause ‘if any there .

he?’ why he should not be attached for contempt. (R. pp. —

4-6). Notice of the motion was issued on January 6, 1964,

and served upon the defendant on the same day, — rs

- * with the said thotion. (R. p. ¥

. The defendant filed answer to the motion, denying ne

material ee thereof, and affirmatively alleging that

the ‘‘ConfessioW of Judgment”’ was void for that:

(a) It was not verified ;.

(b) It did not state facts sufficient to create an obliga-

tion within the terms and provisions of G S 1-247, and to

state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, or to

vest the Court with jurisdiction to enter a valid judgment;

(c) It was void for indefiniteness ;”

(d) That-it did not come within the purview of orders -

* and decrees which may be enforced through contempt pro-

ceedings, in that it did no direct the defendant ‘to make

any payment to the plaintiff. (R. pp. 6-7). ,

-

Z- *@™

{>

*

: ‘ .

? * 1 ,

The plaintiff filed reply to, the defendant’s answer. to

motion (R. p..8); and, by permission of the Court, filed

. Amendec Reply... (R. pp. 9-32).

Among the defensts “alleged by the plaintiff to the de- ~~

fendant’s attack upon the judgment, was the plea of estoppel

(It. pp. 11-17); and among other things, alleged:

“That the aforesaid separation agreement, confes-—

sion "of judgment, and judgment are interdey vendent :’”

fit. p. 13). ;

’

: ;

Upon the hearing of tlie said motion, his Honor, Monnis,

J., found as a fact— ~. | aa gee oe re

oe ee that’ the judgment ix a contract between the

plaintiff. and the defendant, sanctioned by the Court,

coustituting itself a consent judgment and for which

citation for contempt will not lie;’? (R. p.25),

and entered an order dismissing the same, from- which ’

ruling the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court:, (R.

pp. 35-36), The said ruling was reversed and the Opinion

of the Court ix reported as “Prriey v. Perey, 255 NC

493°. The opinion concluded with the provision—

“The lower, Court will issue a show cause order

as prayed in plaintiff's motioh, and rem have a: hear-

ing on such order according to law.”

Sliow cause order was issued by his Honor, Boxe, Juner,

on January 8, 1962, returnable on January 15, 1962, (R.

pp. 36-37), which was served apon the defendant, together

with a copy of the said motion dated. January 6, 1961)

(R. pp. 37-38). :

The nl filed answer to the said mation ‘sail show

cause order, alleging that the Confession of Judgment and

Deed of Separation were contémporanecously entered into

o ,

8

by agreement between the plaintiff and defendant: and so -

construed between the parties, and that the noncompliance

by the defendant witli the terms and provisions thereof

does not entitle the plaintiff to an order directing that

’ the defendant be imprisoned as a means of enforeing the

payment. thereof; and further alleging that the entering

of such an order would be in violation of the rights guar-,

anteed to the defendant hy Sections 16 and 17 of Article

I of the Constitution of North Carolina, providing that

there shall be no inyprisonment for debt in this State ex-

cept iti eases of fraad; and in yiolation of the rights guar-

anteed to the defendant under, the terms and provisions

- “of the Fourteenth Amendment fo the Constitution of’ the

United States. (R. pp. 40-44). s

The defendant further alleged that he interpreted the

‘statements made to him.in the course of ‘the signing of

| the Confession of Judgment and Deed of Separation as

meaning that he would pay $62.50 on the 3rd and 18th of

each month feginning July 3, 1958, for a period of two ©

years or until a divorce deé¢ree was entered between hint

and his wife upon the ground of two years’ separation;

and that he, in good faith, nade the payments until De-*

cember 3, 1960, and discontinued the making of the same

at that time, sineerely believing that he was not further’

@ligated to make payments. (R. pp. 44-47). |

The hearing on the show cause order was had before

- Bons, J., at the January Term 1962 (second week) of the

Superior Court of Onslow County upon affidavits (R. pp.

49-63), anid Bone, J. entered an Order (R. pp. 64-67) hold-

ing the defendant in contempt of Court and, ordering the

defendant confined. to the common jail of Onslow County

‘for the period of thirty (30) days, and farther provided

that the defendant could purge himself’ of his contempt -

*.

*

ee

upon the payment of the sum of $1,625.00 into the office of

the Clerk\of the Superior Court-of Onslow County, to be -

paid by said Clerk to the Plaintiff.

Bone, J., in his order, -anong other things, Seiad as a

fact that—

¢. .. “the sonian of the said Confession of Judginent

: ond Judgnient were discussed and agreed upon by the

v parties ...’’ (R. p. 65).

From the order of his Honor, Boxe, J., the defendant |

appealed to the Supreme ¢ ‘ourt’ of North ¢ ‘arolina, assign-

ing errors. , ,

In an ‘opinion filed March 28, 1962, the Supréme Court

of North Carolina affirmed the order of his Honor, Bong,

J., entered at. the January 1962 Term of the Superior Court

of Onslow. County. tas

On May 30, 1962, the defendant filed Notice of Appeal

to the Supreme Court of the United States, from the final

¢

opinion and judgment ef Supreme Court: of North |

Carolina filed March £ , 1962.

The Questions Presented Are Substantial _

* The judgment below should be reversed because it @rro-

neously sustains the constitutionality of a statute of the

State of North Carolina which allows the defefdant to be

imprisoned for debt in violation of the North Carolina con- .

stitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt.

Section 16 of Article I of fhe Constitutton of North Caro- — .

lina, provides:

‘There shall be no imprisonment for debt i in this State

except in cases of fratd.”* ,

Pa

Section 17. of Article I of the € ‘onstitution of North Caro-

lona, provides : | io

‘*No person ought to be iskon, imprisoned, or disseized

of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed or

exiled, or in any manner deprived of his life, liberty or

iti be but by the law of the land.’’

If the Legislature of North Carolina can provide for thé

ie enfore ement of the judgment i in the case at bar through con-

‘tempt proceedings within the terms and provisions of the

___Coristitution of North Carolina, and of the United States, *

upon which the defendant relies for the inv alidity of. the

said statute, it may provide for the enforcement of the pay-

ment of any debt through contempt proceedings. |

The defendant respectfully submits that the action ofthe -

Legislature of North Carolina in enacting G, 8, 1-247: pro-

viding for imprisonment for debt through: contempt pro-

ceedings was unconstitutional and void, and this’ Court

should so hold.

Conclusion

| Wuererore, it is respectfully submitted that this Court

has jurisdiction of this appeal under Section 1257(2),

Title 28 , United States Code.

"Respectfully submitted,

Guy E.uoorrt,

Kinston, North Carolina,

Attorney for the Appellant.

Jones, Reep « Grirrix, , —

Kinston, North Carolina.

¢

11

APPENDIX |

: In THE Supreme Covert or Norru Canduina.

di Spring Term 1962

No. 171—Onslow __

Heves Exizanety Peuiey,.

7 Y,

Carpe Her wert PULLEY

* Appeal by defendant. from Boxe, J, January Term 1962

of Onslow.

This i is an. appeal from an order entered pursuant to a

hearing upon an order, dirveting the defendant to show

cause’why he should not be held and punished as for con-

tempt for failure to contply with a confessed judgment

entered on 11 July 1958, directing that he pay a stated sum,

to wit, $62.50 on the-3rd and 18th days’ of seach and every _

‘month from the 3rd day of duly 195s, To The’ plaintiff for

her support: and maintenance.

‘This case is before us a second time. On the first appeal,

Pulley v. Pulley, 255 NC 423, 121 SE 2d 876, an order of the

lower court dismissing the plaintiff's motion to show cause ;

why the defendant should not be held in contempt for fail-’

ure to comply with the terms of said confessed judgment,

was reversed, and the lower court was directed to issue

a show cause order as prayed for in the yryintift's motion

and to havé a ‘hearing thereon,

A show cause order was ixsued and didly served on the

defendant. . The hearing was held on 17 January 1962

before his Honor, ‘Bone, J., regularly assigned to hold ithe

courts of the Fourth Judicial District and presiding at the

January Term 1962 of the Superior Court of Onslow

County.

The court found that the defendant had not paid any sum

whatsoever. to the plaintiff, as required in the confessed

judgment entered on 11 July 1958, since paying her the

sum of $62.50 on 3 December 1960;, that the defendant has

7

.

-. eer 12

J wilfully failed and refused to comply with said para a

and is now in arrears in his payments due the plaintiff under -

said judgment in the sum of $1,625.00 up to and ineluding

17 Janfary 1962; and that the defendant's failure to comply ;

with said judgment i is not due to any financial inability on =| ~~

his part, but was caused and is solely due to his intentional,

persistent and wilful purpose to av oid compliance with the

terms of said judgment. The court entered the following

order:

“Tr is Tuererore Consimderes, Orverev, axp Apscparp

that the defendant, Charlie Herbert Pulley, on account of

his wilful failure and refusal to comply with the judgment.

in this cause, be and he is hereby adjudged in contempt of

this court and that the said ¢ ‘harlie Herbert Pulley be pun;

ished for his contempt and, ax punishment there for, Ir-ts \

Oxperep that the said Charlie Herbert Pulley beonfined itt -

. the common jail of Onslow County for the period oo

_ days.’’ pg ee; |

__It_was-farther ordered that the defendant! could purge

“himself of this contempt by payment of the sum of $1,625.00

into the office of the Clerk of the Superior Courtcof Onslow

- County, Which sum would in fall payment of alimony due,

the plaintiff up‘to and including the 17th day of January

1962, pursuant to the provisions of said confesses judgment:

The facts in this case were set out in détail in the opinion

on the former apjeal, including the relevant parts of the

separation agreement exeeuted by the parties on 11 July

— 1958 and a verbatim copy of the confessed judgment. Hence,

we deem it unnecessary to repeat them herein.’

+ The defendant appeals’ from the order entered in the-

wourt below, assigning error. . e

A. Turner Suaw, Jr. { Excis, Gopwiys. « Hoorer for plain-

tiff.

Jones, Reep & Gnirrin for defendant. .

Denny, C.J. The appellant on thiv appeal seeks to have

us review and reconsider substantially the identical ques-

tions presented and decided on the former appeal with re-

‘ ;

13. a ay

| spect ‘to the validity of the a judgment and the

right to have its terms enforced by confempt proceedings.

He contends that the court below echinm ved error ib not. *

holding that such judgment. was merely 4 éonsent judgment

and not enforceable by contempt proceedings. These ques-

tions were considered and determined it the former appeal

and decided adversely to the defendant. * The opinion be-

came the law of the ease and the lower éourt was bound

thereby.. Glenn v. City of Ralejgh, 248 NC 378, 103 SE 2d

482 ; Hayes v. City of Wilmington, 243 NC 525, 91 SE 2d

673; Bruce v. O'Neal Flying Service, 254 NC 79, 66 SE 2d

312; Maddox v. Brown, 233 NC 519, 64 SE 2d 864.

In the former opinion, Parker, J., speaking for the Court

said: ‘‘It is to be understood that: we are not passing upon

‘the question of the validity of the-conféssed judgment, and

the entry-of-judgmeit thereon, if they .were assailed by a

“ereditor, or challenged by defendant on the ground of

fraud, mistaké, or oppression. "We place our decision’

squarely upon the ground that defendant, under all the

facts here, \is estopped to question the validity of his own

confessed judgment for alimony, and of the entry of judz

ment therefor by the <nperior court: of Onslow County ibs

authorized by him, and to question-that the entry of judy.

ment by the court on the confessed judgme ut ix a orde to

pay alimony.

“The court be low erred j in not holding that defendant is

estopped to question the validity of his own confessed jude-

ment for alimony, and of the entry of judgment therefor

by the court, and to question that the judgme nt entered by

the court on his confessed judgment ix an order of court -

for defendant to pay alimony, and ‘jn conchiding that they

‘are a mere contract’ between plaintiff and defendant cori-

stituting consent judgments unenforceable by contempt

proceedings, and in ordering plaintiff’ «motion to show cause -

‘dismissed. The lower court will issue a showeanse order as,

prayed in plaintiff ’s ‘motion, and then have a hearing on

such ordér according to law.’

The court below, in issuing the order to show. canse and

in having a hearing thereon, merely followed the directive

of ‘this Court in its former vopinioni.

14

~ , - - 4 "ae 4 ‘ : oe

Th remaining question is 7 tient te ‘sufficient

‘evidence to support the ruling on the court’s finding that.

the defendant's failure.to comply with the judgment order-

ing him to pay the stated: sums. according to:the terms of Pitan ero

* the donfessed judgment to the plaintiff for hor support ——

and mainterance, was wilful. Ce, nee

The defendant has not contended. ¢ has been or

‘that he is’ now financially unable to make these payments.

The court below, after hearing’ the evidence of the plaintiff -

vand« ‘he. defendant and the arguments of counsel, among- i tae

ether\things, found that, on 11 July 1958, when the defend-

‘ant signed the confession pf judgment herein and the judg-

might was.entered on, the defendant's confession of, judg- bs ‘

ent, he fully understood what he was signing and the

/. effect of same; ‘that he .understood that. the payments

referred to in the said confession of judgment and judg-

ment were to continue so long as he and the plajutiff lived

and would coptinue whether or not he obtained a divorce

from the plaintiff * * *."" -

The court further found that before the confessed judg-.

ment was signed, the Clerk of the Superior Court inquired

as to whether or not defendant knew that-if he ‘confessed

judgment he would be liable for contempt if he failed te

pay the amounts set out in. the confessed judgment and

the judgment enteged pursuant thereto; that the defendant

said he understood the judgment and-further stated that

it had been explained to him by the attorney.

In our opinion, the evidence is sufficient to support the

- findings of the court below and that such findings are sufti-

cient to support the order entered, and we so hold. ,

“The order ad judging the: defendant in contempt,: atid

imposifig a prison sentence, and prov iding that’ the de-

fendant may purge. himself of the contempt in the manner

prescribed i in the order, is-

, Affirmed,

o

Suarp, J. took no part*in the ‘consideration or ‘decision

of this case. GH Pte

(3186-4)