
    A. V. Caro, Petitioner, vs. A. E. Maxwell, Judge of the Circuit Court, Respondent.
    Ah appeal does not lie from an order of the ('.ircuit Court imposing a line for a contempt in violating an injunction ; nor will a mandamus be granted to compel the approval of an appeal bond in such a ease.
    This is an application to the Supreme Court for a mandamus. The facts are as follows:
    The petitioner states in his petition that he was served in June, 1888, with a rule from the Circuit Court of Escambia county, to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for disregarding an injunction issued by such court; and after giving the proceedings on such rule states that the Circuit Judge, after hearing the evidence and argument of counsel, adjudged him to be guilty of violating the injunciion and imposed on him a fine of one hundred dollars and the costs. He further represents that he gave notice of his intention to appeal to the Supremo Court and the Circuit Judge fixed ihe amount of the appeal bond at $200, and afterwards on his presenting the bond, signed by good and sufficient sureties, the Judge refused to approve it,.and directed the Clerk of the Court not to approve it “ upon the pretext and assumption that no appeal lies from the decision of the Circuit. Court in such matters ” ; and he states he is confined in jail in consequence of this “ arbitrary and unwarranted action ” of the Judge, and prays a writ of mandamus to compel the Judge or Clerk to approve the bond and allow an appeal.
    Elliott, Tucker Thompson, for Petitioner.
   This Chief-Justice delivered the opinion of the court.

Application fora writ of mandamus to compel the Judge to approve an appeal bond in case of an appeal attempted to be taken by Caro, from an order adjudging him guilty of a contempt in violating au injunction issued by the court, and imposing a fine therefor.

An appeal will not lie in such case, a- matters of contempt of the authority of a court are entirely within the province of the court adjudging the same, and .not subject to be reviewed upon writ of error or appeal. Easton vs. The state, 39 Ala., 551; Ex-parte Summers, 5 Iredell, 149; The State vs. Tipton, 1 Blackf., 166; Ex-pàrte Kearney, 7 Wheat., 38; Ex-parte Stickney, 40 Ala., 160; Cossart vs. State, 14 Ark., 538; Bunch vs. State, 14 ib., 544; Ware vs. Robinson, 9 Cal., 107; Howard vs. Durand, 36 Ga.. 346; Hunter vs. State, 6 Inch, 423; First Cong. Ch. vs. Muscatine, 2 Iowa, 69 ; Bickley vs. Com., 1 J. J. Mar., 575; Turner vs. Com., 2 Met., (Ky.) 619; Watson vs. Thomas, 6 Ditt., 248; People vs. Simonson, 9 Mich., 492; Romeyn vs. Caplis, 17 Mich., 449; State vs. Towle, 42 N. H., 540; Coryellvs. Holcombe, 9 N. J. Eq., 650; Johnston vs. Com., 1 Bibb, 598; Case of Yates, 4 Johns. R., 443; Buel vs. Street, 9 Johns. R., 443; McCredie vs. Senior, 4 Paige, 378; People vs. Sturtevant, 9 N. Y., 263; State vs. Sheriff, 1 Mill., (S. C. Court,) 145; Martin’s Case, 5 Yerger, 456; Casey vs. State, 25 Tex., 380; Vilas vs. Burtow, 27 Vt., 56; In re Cooper, 32 Vt., 253; Ex-parte Edwards, 11 Fla.

Writ denied.  