
    PAGE v. RANDALL et al.
    
    Attendance upon any Court as a witness, juror, or party, only exempts the person so in attendance from arrest in a civil action, but not from obeying any ordinary process of a Court.
    Certiorari to the Superior Court of the City of San Francisco.
    The defendants were summoned to appear and answer in the Court below touching their property, under proceedings supplementary to execution, on the application of Joseph Hetherington, the assignee of the judgment against them. The defendant, Andrew Randall, put in a sworn answer averring that he resided in Marin County, and was only in San Francisco to attend to certain cases before the U. S. Land Commission; in which he was interested, and praying that the proceedings be dismissed. Opposing affidavits of Hetherington, and of one of the proprietors of the hotel where Randall lived, averring that Randall had resided in San Francisco for over a year, were filed. Randall, on being required to answer by the Court concerning his property, refused to do so, whereupon he was adjudged guilty of a contempt and committed to the county jail until he should answer. An order of the Judge is endorsed on the writ, staying proceedings on the writ for two days, and authorizing the sheriff to allow Randall such privileges and courtesies as were consistent with his safe keeping. As appears by the return of the sheriff he allowed Randall his liberty on parol, which the latter forfeited, whereupon a mittimus issued to the sheriff of Sacramento county, who arrested Randall and delivered him to the sheriff of San Francisco county, who retained him in custody under the commitment, The defendant, Randall, obtained a writ of certiorari to this Court, upon which the proceedings are reviewed.
    
      J. H. McKune for Defendant.
    
      Haights & Gary for Plaintiff.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Murray.

Mr. Justice Terry concurred.

The appellant was summoned to appear and answer, touching his property, under the provision of the statute entitled “ proceedings supplementary to execution.” In his answer he alleges that he is not a resident of San Francisco, but of another county, and that he was in San Francisco for the most part in attendance as a suitor upon the Board of United States Land Commissioners; it does not allege that at the precise time of the summons he was in attendance upon any Court as witness, juror, or party, and even if he had been this would only have exempted him from arrest in a civil action, and not from obeying any ordinary process of the Court.

The refusal to answer interrogatories was highly improper and contumacious, deserving the rebuke and punishment inflicted by the Court below. The judgment of contempt is sufficiently explicit, and the proceedings regular.

Certiorari dismissed, with costs.  