
    Samuel G. Baldwin v. The State of Ohio.
    The act of clandestinely abstracting from the files of the court a subpena for witnesses, and substituting another subpena in its place, and procuring a false return to be made upon the latter, all with intent to defraud a party litigant in said court, and in whose case such subpena issued, does not come within either of the clauses of the first section of the act of February 24,1834, ’• declaratory of the law concerning contempts of court,” but does come within the provisions of the second section of said act.
    Error, to the court of common pleas of Cuyahoga county. .Reserved in the district court.
    This is a petition in error to reverse a summary judgment rendered by the court of common pleas of Cuyahoga county, for an alleged contempt of court.
    The foundation of the judgment was the following motion filed in said court, February 15, 1854, by Keith & Coon, attorneys at law:
    “ And now come the undersigned attorneys of this court, and move said court for a rule on Samuel G. Baldwin, to show -cause why an attachment should not issue from this court, against him, for a contempt of said court, in abstracting, on ■ or about the 15th inst., from the files of said court a subpena, which said subpena was issued on the 9th inst., and served and returned on the 10th inst., and which was for witnesses in the case of Alfred Oozzens v. John Goon, pending in said • court, and carrying away the same without the knowledge of the clerk of said court, and concealing it.
    “ And the undersigned further set forth, that after the said Baldwin had so abstracted the subpena, he substituted an- ■ other subpena in the place thereof, with a false return thereon, which said false return was procured to be made for the purpose of fraud upon John Coon, the said defendant in the said •case.”
    The defendant in the motion, plaintiff in error here, an.swered under oath, and testimony and argument being heard, he was found guilty, and was condemned to pay a fine of one-hundred dollars, and also the costs of the proceeding.
    
      Ranney, Backus &j Roble, for plaintiff in error.
    
      James Murray, attorney general, for the State'.
   By the Court.

The testimony adduced at the hearing, is not embodied in the record; but the statements contained in the answer of the plaintiff in error, and the manner in which, these statements are made, do not tend to induce a very strong impression of his innocence of the charge against him.. But we are compelled to say that, in our opinion, the charge made did not bring him within any of the clauses of the first section of the act of February 24, 1884, “ declaratory of the law concerning contempts of court.” (1 Curwen’s Stat. 122.).-But the ease was clearly within the second section of that act, and he ought to have been proceeded against by indictment, and punished under that section.

Judgment reversed.  