offered in the presence of the court, when sitting judicially; indirect contempts, are acts committed outside of court which tend to embarrass the administration of justice.*

6

§ 606. What acts have been held contempts.—Among acts which have been punished criminally as contempts are a false pretense that a party to a civil action is too ill to attend court, a failure to turn over property according to the court's order, to proceed with a sale, or persist in a boycott, in defiance of the court's orders, or violate an injunction against interfering with another's employés, though in the latter case the contrary has also been held.10 Concealment of assets by a bankrupt is a criminal contempt.11 Among direct criminal contempts are language used in presence of court intimating the judge is unfair and ignorant, 12 profanity in the court's presence, 13 fighting in the court room,1 assaulting the judge as he leaves the room,15 appearing in court so

99 N. E. 920, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 793n, Ann. Cas. 1913 E, 276; O'Brien v. People, 216 Ill. 354, 75 N. E. 108, 108 Am. St. 219, 3 Ann. Cas. 966; People v. Court, 101 N. Y. 245, 4 N. E. 259, 54 Am. Rep. 691; In re Merrill, 88 N. J. L. 261, 102 Atl. 400.

4 People v. Wilson, 64 Ill. 195, 16 Am. Rep. 528; In re Clark, 208 Mo. 121, 106 S. W. 990, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 389n. See also In re Glenn, 103 S. Car. 501, 88 S. E. 294 (juror assaulted out of court after verdict not contempt); People v. Samuel, 199 Ill. App. 294.

5 Welch v. Barber, 52 Conn. 147, 52 Am. Rep. 567.

Range Co., 221 U. S. 418, 55 L. ed. 797, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 874n. 9 Garrigan v. United States, 163 Fed. 16, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1295n; Stewart v. United States, 236 Fed. 838.

10 Franklin Union No. 4 v. People, 220 I11. 355, 77 N. E. 176, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1001, 110 Am. St. 248.

11 Clay v. Waters, 178 Fed. 385, 21 Ann. Cas. 897.

12 Mahoney v. State, 33 Ind. App. 655, 72 N. E. 151, 104 Am. St. 276; In re Hanson, 99 Kans. 23, 160 Pac. 1141; In re Willis, 94 Wash. 180, 162 Pac. 38.

13 22 L. R. A. 353.

14 State v. Woodfin, 27 N. Car. 199, 42 Am. Dec. 161.

15 Ex parte McCown, 139 N. Car. 95, 51 S. E. 957, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 603.

17

intoxicated as to disturb order,16 failing to produce a prisoner, attempting to influence a judge's decision,18 or bribe or influence a juror.19

§ 607. Newspaper articles.-Certain newspaper publications pending a suit, reflecting on the court, jury, parties, attorneys, or others, tending to influence the action of the court or prejudice jurors, are criminal contempts.20 Divulging secrets of the jury room is a contempt.21 A newspaper article commenting on past conduct of a judge, without relation to a pending case, is not contemptuous.22 It is criminal contempt for a judge of a trial court to write a newspaper article reflecting on the decision of the court of appeals in reversing a case tried by him, scandalizing the judicial action of the reviewing court and casting reflections upon the character of the judges in their judicial capacity.23 Direct contempts are punished summarily, upon view, and without trial; there is a trial of indirect contempts similar to other criminal trials.

§ 608. Burden of proof.-In cases involving criminal contempts the accused is presumed to be innocent, and the burden of proving his guilt rests upon his accuser.24

16 Neely v. State, 98 Miss. 816, 54 So. 315, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 138n, Ann. Cas. 1913 B, 281n.

17 Ex parte Sternes, 77 Cal. 156, 19 Pac. 275, 11 Am. St. 251.

18 State v. Johnson, 77 Ohio St. 461, 83 N. E. 702, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 905n.

19 Poindexter v. State, 109 Ark. 179, 159 S. W. 197, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 517; ~ittle v. State, 90 Ind. 3, 46 Am. Rep. 224; State v. District Court, 37 Mont. 191, 95 Pac. 593, 15 Ann. Cas. 743n, 747; In re Oldham, 89 N. Car. 23, 45 Am. Rep. 673; United States v. Toledo Newspaper Co., 220 Fed. 457, 488; State v. Howell, 80 Conn. 668, 69 Atl. 1057, 125 Am. St. 141, 13 Ann.

Cas. 501; People v. Wilson, 64 Ill. 195, 16 Am. Rep. 528.

20 Myers v. State, 46 Ohio St. 473, 22 N. E. 43, 15 Am. St. 638; notes to 2 Am. Dec. 391 and 97 Am. Dec. 629; People v. Gilbert, 281 Ill. 619, 118 N. E. 196; United States v. Toledo Newspaper Co., 220 Fed. 458.

21 Burns v. State, 145 Wis. 373, 128 N. W. 987, 140 Am. St. 1081.

22 Cheadle v. State, 110 Ind. 301, 11 N. E. 426, 59 Am. Rep. 199; State v. Young, 113 Minn. 96, 129 N. W. 148, Ann. Cas. 1912 A, 163. 23 In re Fite, 11 Ga. App. 665, 76 S. E. 397.

24 State v. Daugherty, 137 Tenn. 125, 191 S. W. 974; People v. Gilbert, 281 Ill. 619, 118 N. E. 196.

§ 610. Fraudulent conveyances.-Under an old English statute of 13 Eliz. which makes void conveyances of property with intent to defraud creditors, a criminal penalty for such an act is added, and there are similar statutes in many of our states. The intent to defraud creditors is the essential criminal element.1 Among acts indictable under such statutes are the fraudulent alienation of real estate,2 making a second deed without disclosing a prior one to the same property,3 or knowingly conveying incumbered land with intent to defraud. However, today the records usually furnish protection against such conveyances.

§ 611. Concealing property.-Concealing or secreting goods with intent to defraud creditors is indictable under statutes in many states. The two essential elements of the offense are an actual fraudulent secreting, assigning, or reception of the goods, and an intention to prevent the property being made liable for the payment of debts, and both these elements must be shown before conviction can be had. It is not necessary that the concealment be from every one, if

1 State v. Leslie, 16 N. H. 93.
2 Reg. v. Smith, 6 Cox Cr. C. 31.
3 State v. Jones, 68 Mo. 197.

4 State v. Hunkins, 90 Wis. 264, 62 N. W. 1047, 63 N. W. 167.

5 Whart. Crim. Law (11th ed.), §§ 1505, 1506, 1507.

it be from the officer entitled to the property. It is not secreting to refuse to give up property to an officer levying execution from one's person.7

Many statutes provide penalties for the removal from the state of property covered by chattel mortgage, or subject to lien, without the mortgagee's or lienholder's consent.

6 State v. Williams, 30 Maine 484.

7 People v. Morrison, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 399.

CHAPTER XXXVIII.

Section

615. In general.

OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT.

616. Partial malicious and corrupt acts by magistrates.

ance.

Section

617. Other misconduct of officials which is indictable.

618. Refusal to accept public office. 619. Extortion.

§ 615. In general.-Official misconduct which is indictable at common law may consist of malfeasance or nonfeasMalfeasance by a public officer consists of the performance of an illegal act, or the abuse of a discretionary power, from an improper motive. Nonfeasance consists in wilful neglect by a public officer to perform an official duty which he is legally bound to perform, provided the discharge of such duty does not entail greater danger than a person of ordinary firmness and activity may be expected to encounter. In malfeasance, the illegal act may consist in extortion, oppression, fraud or breach of trust. Extortion consists in taking from a person, under color of office, something of value which is not due.2 It is separate and distinct from the crime of bribery.3 Oppression consists in inflicting upon a person bodily injury, imprisonment or other harm not amounting to extortion. Fraud or breach of trust affecting the public, committed by a public officer in the discharge of

1 State v. Kern, 51 N. J. L. 259, 17 Atl. 114.

2 State v. Pritchard, 107 N. Car. 921, 12 S. E. 50; 2 Bishop's New Crim. L. (8th ed.), §§ 390-408.

3 Williams v. United States, 168

U. S. 382, 42 L. ed. 509; Levar v. State, 103 Ga. 42, 29 S. E. 467; People v. McLaughlin, 2 App. Div. 419, 37 N. Y. S. 1005, 73 N. Y. St. 496, 11 N. Y. Cr. 97.

4 Steph. Dig. Crim. L., art. 119.