
    In the Matter of the Application of The Board of Health of the City of Yonkers to Punish John Copcutt for Contempt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed May 8, 1893.)
    
    Contempt—Violation of injunction.
    In an action brought by the board of health, an injunction was granted restraining the defendant from drawing off the water from certain mill ponds below the level of the dams, pending said action. The defendant, however, did so, and although notified and informed that a cessation of such violations would secure indemnity for the past, paid no attention thereto. Held, a proper case for punishment for contempt.
    Appeal from order adjudging John Copcutt in contempt for violation of an injunction order, and imposing a fine.
    On the 8th day of July, 1891, an order to show cause, containing a temporary injunction restraining John Copcutt, his agents, servants and officers from drawing off the water from the mill ponds of the Nepperhan river in the city of Yonkers, known as the first, fifth and sixth water powers, between the 1st day of May and the 1st day of November, so as to expose the surface of the ponds below the level of the- dams, was obtained by the board of health of the city of Yonkers in an action then commenced by said board of health against John Copcutt. That order to show cause was regularly served upon John Copcutt, and was made returnable at the city of Poughkeepsie, before Mr. Justice Barnard, on the 10th day of July, 1891. On the return day of said order, after hearing counsel for the board of health in support of the application to continue the injunction, and counsel for Mr. Copcutt in opposition thereto, Mr. Justice Barnard continued the injunction, and made it permanent pending the action.
    In the month of August, 1892, the board of health directed the city attorney of Yonkers to institute proceedings against John Copcutt for violating the terms of the injunction order. The city attorney thereupon wrote a letter to Copcutt informing him that proceedings would be commenced unless he ceased violating the provisions of that order. Upon receiving such letter John Copcutt called upon the city attorney, and, in the presence of the mayor of the city of Yonkers, admitted that he had been violating the provisions of the order in question, a copy of which order was then exhibited to him; admitted that he had been served with the order, and knew all about it, and asked that the city authorities should not compel him to comply with the terras of the order. Such request was refused, and Gopcutt persisted, declaring, that the health officer had power to grant the request, and at his solicitation the mayor made an appointment with him to meet the health officer on the following day. On the following day John Gopcutt did meet the mayor and the health officer, and requested the health officer to permit him to withdraw the water below the level of the dams, contrary to the terms of the order of this court. Again his request was refused; but he continued, notwithstanding such refusal, to violate the terms of the foregoing order, and withdrew the water below the level of the dams. And on August 31, 1892, the board of health, through the city attorney, obtained an order to show cause why John Gopcutt should not be punished for contempt for violating the terms of the order above mentioned.
    
      Arthur J. Burns, for app’lt, Copcutt; James M. Hunt, for resp’t, board of health.
   Dykman, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the special term Gopcutt guilty contempt violating an injunction of this court, and imposing a fine upon him for such violation.

The objections to the order are mostly technical, and but a very faint effort is made to deny the offense.

The proof of violation of the injunction is amply sufficient and the technical objections are not well founded.

The defendant has manifested no disposition to yield obedience to the mandate of the court, although it related to a matter of the utmost importance to the public.

Previous to the institution of the proceedings to punish the defendant for contempt he was notified of»his violation of the injunction, and informed that a cessation of his contumacy would secure immunity for the past, but he gave no heed to the notification.

If the process of the court is to be vindicated this order must be upheld.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

Barnard, P. J., concurs; Pratt, J., not sitting.  