
    The New Jersey Foundry & Machine Co., Judgment-Creditor and Respondent, v. Julius H. Siebert, Judgment-Debtor and Appellant.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
    November, 1904.)
    Contempt — “ Willfully disobeying the order requiring him to appear on June 14th, 1904, for (Examination ” is a sufficient statement of the offense — Fine of $250 is authorized.
    An order adjudging a person guilty of contempt which describes the conduct constituting the contempt as “wilfully disobeying the order requiring him to appear on June 14th, 1904, for examination” sufficiently apprises the delinquent party that his disobedience consisted in not appearing, and is not subject to the criticism that the words quoted were merely descriptive of the order of June 14, 1904, and did not sufficiently set forth, the act or omission of which he was adjudged guilty.
    In such a case the court has power under' section 2284 of the Code of Civil Procedure to impose upon the delinquent party a fine of $250 and direct its payment to the complainant.
    Appeal from an order of the City Court of the city of New York.
    Myers & Goldsmith (Samuel J. Goldsmith, of counsel), for appellant.
    L. R. Conklin, for respondent.
   Fitzgerald, J.

The court below had power to impose a fine of $250, and direct its payment to the judgment creditor. Its authority rests upon section 2284, Code of Civil Procedure, by which two methods are provided for compensating an aggrieved party: First, If an actual loss or injury has been produced by a fine, sufficient to indemnify the aggrieved party to be “ collected and paid over to the aggrieved party and, Second, “ Where it is not shown that such an actual loss or injury has been produced, a fine must be imposed, not exceeding the amount of the complainant’s costs and expenses, and two hundred and fifty dollars in addition thereto, and must be collected and paid, in like manner.” Socialistic Co-operative Publishing Assn. v. Kuhn, 164 N. Y. 473, is directly in point.

The order sufficiently describes the conduct constituting the contempt, its language being “ for wilfully disobeying the order requiring him to appear on June 14th, 1904 for examination.”

It is urged that these words are merely descriptive of the older and do not sufficiently set forth the act or omission of which appellant was adjudged guilty, but this criticism is highly technical, the words “ requiring him to appear for examination ” are amply sufficient to appraise him that this disobedience consisted in not appearing.

Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

Freedman, P. J., and Bischoff, J., concur.

Order affirmed, with costs.  