
    The people, ex relat. Lewis against William Few, Pierre C. Van Wyck, and James Townsend.
    On appiicationof a plaintiff,in a cause pending-in this court, for an attachment against certain persons for a publication relative to the cause, the a rule to'shpw cause; and persous against whom the attach.ment was prayed, havcou'rtand'dieavowed on oath any intentional dis. respect to, or contempt o*t the court, or influencing the course of justice, in the cause,'antfdedaring that the publications complained of were resolutions passed at a public meeting of the electors, and intended, solely, to influence the election of governor, the court refused to make the rule absolute tor an attachment.
    On a former day in this term, Slosson, in behalf of the plaintiff, in the cause of Lewis v. Farmar, moved for a rule against the defendants to show cause why an attachment should not issue against the present defendants, for a contempt. This motion was founded on an affidavit stating, that a suit had been commenced by Lewis against Farrfiar, for a libel, and was depending in this court, in which issue had been joined, and the venue laid ifl the city and county of New- Yorlc, where the defendant resides: that since the pendency of the said suit, a publication, purporting to be a series of resolutions, passed at a public meeting, in the said city, and signed by William Few, as chairman, and James Tomnsend, as secretary, and which were printed on the 6th of March last, in the American Citizen, a paper published in the city of New-Yorlc, which publication the plaintiff believed to ¡tave beGI} ma(je jw t}ie order and direction of New and * Townsend.
    
    The resolution oomplained of, was iii the following words: “Resolved, that we consider the prosecution, commenced by Governor Lewis against Thomas Farmar, , . , .. . “ , . j as chairman or a public meeting or free citizens, to be an unwarrantable attempt to suppress and destroy one of our dearest and most valuable privileges'; that of assemblin^ together openly and publicly; of discussing freely the conduct of public men and public measures; and of expressing our resolutions and opinions to the world; and that, therefore, such prosecution evinces an intolerant, spirit., unbecoming the chief magistrate of a free state, disgraceful in a free government, and insulting to the feelings' of every citizen who was present at that meet* ing.” The affidavit also stated, that on the 12th of March last, resolutions were published in the same paper, signed by William Feiv, as chairman, and Pierre C.
    
    
      Fan Wyck, as secretary, one of which related to the above suit, and was in the following terms: “ In prosecuting the chairaban of a general meeting pf citizens, for resolutions publicly passed as the sense and opinion'of that meeting, thereby exhibiting an instance of,.and disposition towards tyranny, novel and unprecedented; dangerous to civil liberty, repugnant to the spirit and genius of our free constitution, and utterly subversive of the principles of an elective government.’’
    In support of this motion, Slosson cited 1 Fallas, 319, 1 Caines, 485. 578. 4 Blacks. Comm. 286, 287. 2 Fesey, 520.
    The rule to show cause having been granted, the parties now appeared in court, and Sanford, Biker, and T, A. Emmei, in their behalf, showed cause against granting the rulé for the attachment. The affidavit of Fan Wyck, one of the defendants, was read, stating that the writ in the cause of Lewis v. Farmar, was returned at the last term; that the declaration was filed the 6th of March last, and issue joined the 26th of March ; that previous ’to the commencement of the said suit, the plaintiff* had been nominated as a candidate for the office of governor, at the ensuing election ; that a public meeting of the citizens of New-Tork, for the purpose of nominating a caii-didate for the office of governor, took place on the 2d of March, at which Daniel D. Tompkins, Esq. was riomina- ; that the defendant is an elector, and was present at the meeting,where the resolutions were unanimously passed ; but that he had no intention, or idea of committing a contempt of this court, or in any way interfering with, or influencing the administration of justice ; that the resolutions were passed with a view to influence the election, and were intended only to be a constitutional exercise of the right of the persons present^ to canvass and judge of the acts and qualifications of the plaintiff, as a candidate for the office of governor, and not with any design to influence, in any manner, the progress or decision of the cause pending in this court. The affidavit further stated, that at the meeting which took place on the 12th of March, Van Wyck was,by a vote of the meeting,appointed secretary: that the resolutions were unanimously agreed to, and ordered to be published; that in relation to his conduct on that occasion,he had nointention or idea of committing any contempt of the court, or influencing in any manner the administration of justice ; that a letter from the plaintiff, accompanied with certain resolutions of his friends, dated the 21st of January last, was published in the Morning Chronicle, after the commencement of the suit against Farmar, in which, the assertion under the signature of Farmar,' and for which the plaintiff brought his suit, was alleged to be, <{ a base,-villainous, and slanderous falsehood,” &c. &c.
    Similar affidavits made by New and Townsend, were also read, in which they disavowed all intention or idea of any contempt of the court.
    The counsel for the defendants
    cited Due. Ah. Tit. Attachment, A. Loft. 36. 2 Atkins, 48. Faker v. Heart. 3 Hawk. 190. ch. 22f 36. 2 Dickens, 794. 3 Wilson, 177. Onslow's case. 2 Wm. Blade. S. C. 5 Finer, Contempt, 442.
    
    
      Slosson and Colden, contra,
    cited 1 Dallas, 319, 320. 1 Caines, 485. 578. 2 Atkyns, 286. 469.
   Per Curiam.

The defendants have by affidavit negatived any intentional disrespect to, or contempt of this court, or any intention to influence or affect the course of justice in the decision of the cause in question. They have declared, that the only object or intention of the resolutions was to influence the election of a governor. Under these circumstances, and as it appears, that the first impropriety was on the part of the plaintiff, in appealing to the public, in regard to the subject matter of his suit, at the time when he had commenced it, we do not consider, that this case calls for any further proceeding on the part of the court. The facts charged amount only to a constructive contempt, and the parties having completely purged themselves by oath, of any intention to commit one, we do not think it requisite to grant an attachment. The issuing of an attachment is always a matter of discretion in the court, and under the circumstances of the case, public justice does not require our interposition, though we may condemn the publication in question.

Tompkins, J. gave no opinion.

Rule refused.  