
    *The Commonwealth v. Deskins and Another.
    July, 1834.
    Contempts — What Constitutes — -Statute—Construction, — A circuit superiour court orders a subpoena, witnesses to attend the grand jury then in session and they intentionally conceal themselves from the sheriff to prevent the process from being served, and so prevent it from being served, till the grand jury is discharged: Held, upon the construction of the statute of 1830-31, ch. 11, j 25, that this is not a contempt punishable by the court, in a summarj- manner.
    Case adjourned from the circuit superiour-court of Tazewell. That court, at April term 1834, made a rule upon Deskins and Lockhart returnable instanter, to shew cause why they should not be fined and imprisoned for a contempt of the administration of justice, in intentionally concealing themselves (in Jeffersonville, where the court was sitting) from the sheriff, and thereby intentionally preventing him from serving a subpoena upon , them, issued by order of the court, ordering them to appear as witnesses before the grand jury then in session, and so concealing themselves there, till the grand jury was discharged. The rule being served upon them, they appeared, and moved the court to discharge it, upon the ground, that by the statute of 1830-31, ch. 11, fj 25; (Supp. to Rev. Code, ch. 109, pp. 143, 4,) whereby contempts are defined, the acts in the rule mentioned, do not constitute a contempt punishable in any manner by the court. Whereupon, the court, with the assent of the accused, adjourned the following questions to this court: 1. Whether the acts mentioned in the rule, amounted to a contempt of law and the due administration of justice, punishable by the court? 2. What judgment ought to be given on the motion to discharge the rule? 3. And what disposition ought the court to make of the case?
    
      
      Contenrapts. - See monographic vote on “Con-tempts'’ appended to Wells v. Com., 31 Gratt. 500
      On this subject, the principal case was cited in State v. Frew, 24 W. Va. 438, 460, 477; State v. McClaugherty, 33 W. Va. 256, 10 S. R. Rep. 409: State v. Hansford. 43 W. Va. 777, 28 S. E. Rep. 703. See Va. Code, 1887, §§ 3768, 3772.
    
   PEE CURIAM.

Without intending to intimate an opinion, that Deskins and Lock-hart might not be proceeded against by indictment or information, for corruptly endeavouring to obstruct or impede the due administration of justice,, this court is unanimously of opinion, that since the statute of *'1830-31, defining con-tempts, and limiting the powers of the courts to inflict punishment for them, the acts imputed in the rule to the defendants, do not amount to a contempt punishable in the summary manner contemplated by the rule; and therefore the motion to discharge the rule ought to be sustained.  