
    STATE ex rel. BOYLE et al., Relators, v. DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT et al., Respondents.
    (No. 1,803.)
    (Submitted April 12, 1902.
    Decided July 21, 1902.)
    
      Contempt — Supervisory Control — Revievl.
    On an application for a writ of supervisory control to annul a contempt order, tbe supreme court may look into the evidence properly before it for the purpose of ascertaining whether there was any substantial evidence on which to base the order.
    Application by J. Boyle and others for a writ of supervisory control to the district court of the Second judicial district and the Honorable William Clancy, judge thereof, and an-^ other, to annul an order adjudging applicants in contempt.
    Application denied.
    
      Mr. J. M. Mealy, Mr. J. M. Minhle, and Messrs. Breen & Mackel, for Relators.
    
      Messrs. McMatton & Cotter, for Respondents.
   ME. JUSTICE PIGOTT

delivered tbe opinion of tbe court.

Application for writ of supervisory control. Tbe petitioners heretofore unsuccessfully sought, by writs of habeas corpus and certiorari, to annul a judgment of contempt ag’ainst them. (In re Boyle (State ex rel. Boyle et al. v. District Court of Second Judicial Dist.) 26 Mont. 365, 68 Pac. 409.) They now ask for a writ of supervisory control, and present all tbe evidence taken in tbe court below on tbe bearing. Jurisdiction in this court to grant tbe writ prayed for is questioned. Tbe objection is disposed of by tbe opinion in Stale ex rel. Sutton v. District Court of Second Judicial Dist., ante, p. 128, 69 Pac. 988.

Upon an application of this kind we may look into tbe evidence properly brought before us for tbe purpose of‘ascertaining whether there was any substantial evidence to justify tbe finding upon which tbe judgment of constructive contempt was based. After careful consideration, we are not prepared to say that such evidence was lacking. The application is therefore denied, and the proceeding dismissed.

Dismissed.  