
    [No. 9721.
    In Bank.
    August 27, 1885.]
    ALBERT HEDGES et al., Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF YUBA COUNTY, Respondent.
    Contempt — Sueeiciencv op Affidavit — Violation op Injunction against Cobpobation—Pbohibition.—An affidavit in contempt proceedings for the violation of an injunction restraining a corporation, its officers, agents, superintendents, managers, servants, and employees, from the commission of certain acts, did not state that the persons complained of were officers or servants of the corporation; but it did state that they knew of the issuance, service, and effect of the injunction, and violated it in contempt of the authority of the court. Held, on an application for a writ prohibiting the respondent from proceeding in the matter, that the affidavit was sufficient.
    Application for a writ of prohibition. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    
      Cross & Simonds, for petitioners.
    The affidavit being defective in not stating that the petitioners were officers of the corporation, the court had no jurisdiction over the contempt proceedings. (Batchelder v. Moore, 42 Cal. 412.)
    
      E. A. Forbes, Stabler & Bayne, E. A. Davis, and I. S. Belcher, for Respondent.
    The affidavit was sufficient, as it clearly shows that the petitioners wilfully violated the injunction with full knowledge that their act had been enjoined. (Golden Gate Con. M. Co. v. Superior Court, 65 Cal. 187.)
   Myrick J.

Application for a writ prohibiting the respondent from proceeding in the matter of an alleged contempt committed by the petitioners. An injunction had been issued and served restraining a corporation, its officers, agents, superintendents, managers, servants, and employees. from the commission of certain acts. The affidavit on which the contempt proceedings were based did not in terms state that the petitioners herein were officers, agents, superintendents, managers, servants or employees of the corporation; but it did state that they had full knowledge of the issuance, service, and effect of the injunction, that they worked the mine of the corporation, and that they did the acts complained of in violation of the injunction and in contempt of the authority óf the court issuing it. We cannot presume, for the purposes of issuing the writ prayed for, that the petitioners went upon the ground of the corporation without its authority and committed a trespass, and worked its mine “with a high hand;” but, rather that they went in and worked the mine with the consent and approbation of the owner; that their operations were permitted if not approved and authorized. Tested by the rules of law as to a writ of prohibition, ■we think the affidavit sufficient.

Writ denied.

Morrison, C. J., McKee, J., and McKinstry, J., concurred.  