
    State ex rel. Oshkosh Trunk Company, Respondent, vs. Goerlitz and others, Appellants.
    
      October 19
    
    November 16, 1920.
    
    
      Injunction: Disobeydnce: Conviction for contempt: Nonappealable order.
    
    1. A criminal contempt is an offense against the authority and dignity of the court, and the offense is public although committed in the course of private litigation.
    2. No appeal lies from an order finding the defendants guilty of contempt and fixing punishment, and there is no authority in the court to stay proceedings and sentence. ‘
    Appeal from orders of the circuit court for Winnebago county: Geo. W. Burnell, Circuit Judge.
    
      Dismissed.
    
    The subject matter of this action is a controversy between the Oshkosh Trunk Company, an employer, and certain of its employees. Upon the verified complaint and supporting affidavits, certain of the defendants and others confederating with them were required to show cause why an injunction should not issue restraining them from doing certain things. The injunction was issued August 10, 1920, and was modified August 23, 1920. Subsequently there-was an order to show cause why certain of the defendants should not be punished for criminal contempt by reason of the violation of the order entered August 10, 1920, as modified by the court on August 23d. Upon this hearing the court adjudged each of the defendants guilty of wilfully and deliberately violating the injunctional order and sentenced each of them to serve thirty days in the county jail, their sentences to begin at noon of the day each was sentenced. On behalf ■ of one of the defendants there was, at the time of sentence, a motion for a stay of execution and a motion that the court fix bail, both of which motions were denied by the court. The same motions were subsequently made on behalf of the other defendants and were denied. On the 28th day of August a notice of appeal from ihe orders adjudging the, defendants guilty of contempt of court and ordering them confined in jail was served, the notice being filed September 6th. The sentence of the defendants Goer-litz and Gordon began August 27th, and that of the other defendants August 28th. On September 4th the court, by an order made ex parte, stayed the proceedings pending the determination of the defendants’ appeal to this court and discharged the defendants from jail. On September 17th the defendants 'served and filed an undertaking on appeal.
    For the respondent there was a brief by Williams & Williams of Oshkosh,, and oral argument by George E. Williams. ' ■
    
    [No appearance for appellants.]
   RoseNberry, J.

In this court the plaintiff and respond-

ent moves that the appeal be dismissed, for the reason that no appeal lies under, our statute1 from an order adjudging a party guilty of a criminal contempt. A criminal contempt is an offense against the authority and dignity of the court and therefore raises an issue with the court as the represem tative of organized society, and while such offenses may be committed in the course of private litigation the offense is none the less public in its nature. The question is, May a party disregard commands laid upon him by organized society acting through the courts, relying for justification upon his own judgment and in disregard of the established forms of law? A statement of this question is a sufficient answer to it. When courts are no longer obeyed, or their decrees are not enforced or may be set aside by individual action, then organized society will cease to exist, and. each citizen must become the guardian of those entitled to his protection and the protector of their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In other words, society will revert to the primitive order. The power of -the courts must be maintained if representative government is not to fail. The order finding the defendants guilty of criminal contempt and fixing punishment was not appealable. In re Murphey, 39 Wis. 286; State v. Mushied, 12 Wis. 561; Williamstown v. Darge, 71 Wis. 643, 38 N. W. 187. Neither was there power or authority in the court to stay proceedings and sentence. In re Webb, 89 Wis. 354, 62 N. W. 177.

The seriousness of this situation, involving as it does the authority and dignity of the court, does not seem to have been appreciated. Its importance is not to be measured by the nature of the controversy between the parties. When the authority and the power, of the court is brought in question there is no room for compromise, and the law should be upheld with firmness, courage, and dignity.

We are asked to consider some questions arising upon the merits. The order not being appealable, we have no jurisdiction here to do anything but dismiss the appeal.

By the Court. — Appeal dismissed.  