
    IN THE MATTER OF LAFFERTY
    Contempt — Summary Procedure — Appeal and Error.
    The exercise by a trial judge of his summary power to punish for contempt of court committed in his presence is subject to review on appeal.
    Reference for Points in Headnote
    4 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 168 et seq.
    
    Appeal from Recorder’s Court of Detroit, Joseph A. Gillis, J. Submitted Division 1 November 10, 1970, at Detroit.
    (Docket Nos. 8952-8956.)
    Decided December 9, 1970.
    James T. Lafferty, Michael Lull, Owen Love, and Robert J. Rederscheid, Jr., were convicted of criminal contempt. Defendants appeal.
    Reversed.
    
      Henrietta E. Rosenthal, for the judge of Recorder’s Court of Detroit.
    
      Lafferty, Reosti, J abara, Papakhian, James, Strickgold <& Smith and Goodman, Eden, Robb, Millender, Goodman $ Bedrosian (Gage, Burgess é Knox, of counsel), for defendants on appeal.
    
      Amicus curiae: Metropolitan Detroit Branch, American Civil Liberties Union, by James K. Robinson.
    
    
      Before: V. J. Brennan, P. J., and Levin and Peterson, JJ.
    
      
       Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
    
   Per Curiam.

The exercise by a trial judge of his summary power to punish for contempt of court committed in his presence is subject to review on appeal. See In re Scott (1955), 342 Mich 614, 616; In re Burns (1969), 19 Mich App 525; People v. Ravitz (1970), 26 Mich App 263. It would not serve a constructive purpose to attempt to summarize the record. Suffice it to say that we have read and reread the transcript of the proceedings and have concluded that the convictions and sentences should be and hereby are set aside and reversed.  