
    [Crim. No. 571.
    In Bank.
    September 29, 1899.]
    Ex parte ANNIE KLINE RICKERT, on Habeas Corpus.
    Contempt—Acts not Done in View of Count—Absence of Affidavit and Citation—Habeas Coepus.—An imprisonment for a contempt of court, consisting in instructing a witness not to produce in court certain books which he had been ordered to produce, and. in doing other acts to prevent their production, where none of the acts done were in the immediate view and presence of the court, or of the judge at chambers, is illegal, if the warrant of commitment is not preceded either by an affidavit showing the facts constituting the contempt, or by a citation or notice to show cause, as required by sections 1211 and 1212 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and, in the absence of such affidavit and citation, the prisoner must be discharged upon habeas corpus,
    
    
      PETITION for a writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court to determine the validity of an imprisonment of the petitioner for contempt by order .of the Superior Court of the City and. County of San Francisco. James M. Trout, Judge.
    The petitioner, Annie Kline Rickert, was the president of the Stockton and Tuolumne Railroad Company, a Corporation, and Robert S. Clarke was its secretary. In the case of Charles Erieksen against that corporation, brought in the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco, Robert S. Clarke-was summoned as a witness for the plaintiff, and was ordered to produce in court all of the books of the corporation. The petitioner, as president of the corporation, instructed the witness not to obey the order, and refused to permit the production of the books in court by the witness, and removed them from the safe where they were kept. Further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    J. J. Burt, and James A. Louttit, for Petitioner.
    Gordon & Young, and E. B. Young, for Respondent.
   The COURT.

—This proceeding is akin to Ex parte Ciarle, ante, p. 235, this day decided; but the alleged contempt of this petitioner, Mrs. Rickert, consisted in instructing Clarke not to produce in court certain books which he had been ordered to produce, and in doing certain other acts to prevent the production of said hooks. These acts were not done by the petitioner “in the immediate view and presence of the court, or judge at chambers,” and the warrant of commitment was not preceded by an affidavit showing the facts constituting the contempt, or by a citation or notice to show cause, as required by sections 1311 and 1313 of the Code of Civil Procedure. For this reason the petitioner must be discharged from custody —independent of the views upon which Clarke himself was discharged.

The petitioner is discharged from the custody of the sheriff.  