
    The Commonwealth v. John Stuart and Others.
    Criminal Law — Contempt—Riot When Court Has Adjourned. — The making of an Affray and Riot, accompanied with great noise and turbulence at the Tavern, (near the Courthouse,) where the Judge of the Court was, and of which the Rioters were advised, during the night of a Term, (but the Court being then in recess,) is not a contempt of Court.
    The Superior Court of King George county the 18th September, 1821, made the following rule: “For reasons appearing to the Court, as well from its own observation as from the testimony of Matthew King, it is ordered, that John Stuart, Benjamin Grymes, James F. Minor, William G. Stuart, John Hooe and Nehemiah H. Mason, be summoned to appear here on the first day of the next Term, to shew cause, if any they can, why an Attachment should not issue against them for riotous and disorderly conduct against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth, committed by them in the presence of the * Judge of this Court, at the tavern of George Johnson, within this county, on the night of the 17th instant, during the Term of this Court.” [Note. The Court had adjourned in the evening till the next morning.] The affidavit of King proved that the persons named, did on the said night, at the tavern, whilst the Judge of the Court was then and there present, and they having been advised thereof, commit a great riot and affray: that they were drunk, and excessively noisy and turbulent, so as greatly to annoy every person about the house; that they were quarrel-ling and striking at each other, and with great difficulty were kept from fighting; that they could not be induced to separate and depart till a late hour of the night: that in the course of the broil, one of the party struck the witness, and another rode his horse into the house, and that the quarrelling-, noise and confusion was very great, and could not be restrained until a late hour of the night.
    At the next Term, the rule was discharged as to three of them, and as to the others, the Court doubting whether the offence charged against them was, in contemplation of Law, such an one for which the Defendants can be proceeded against by Attachment, as for a contempt, adjourned the Case, for its novelty and difficulty, to this Court.
    
      
       CrlminaI Law — Contempt — What Constitutes. — in. United States v. Anonymous, 21 Fed. Rep. 769, it is said to print hostile comments on the court, its officers, or proceedings, as in cases where the question generally arises, or to ride a horse into the tavern where the judge sleeps, as in Com. v. Stuart, 2 Va. Gas. 320, may be only constructively a contempt, as it very indirectly obstructs the course of justice, if at all. And in Com. v. Dandridge, 2 Va. Cas. 426, the principal case is cited to the point that at intervals during a term, the court is not regard ed as sitting so as to subject one to the process of attachment for such conduct to the judge, as would have amounted to a contempt during the actual sitting of the court. See generally, monographic note on “Contempts,” appended to Wells v. Com., 21 Gratt. 500.
    
   WHITE, J.,

delivered the judgment of the Court, that, upon mature consideration of the affidavit on which the rule is founded, the said rule be discharged.  