BBIDOES V. SHBLDOK. 45 �the defence of litigation there, from which they had tho right to be free, by those who knew all the facts on ■which the exemption rested. Bac. Abr. "Privilege," B 2. The most difficult question is whether they can have relief here. It is said that this court has no jurisdiction over the proceed- ings in a state court, which is true. The statuts regulates this. Eev. St.. U. S. § 720. Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679. But this statute did not prevent the United States cir- cuit court from releasing a defendant from prooess ont of the supreme court of Pennsylvania, violating its protection. Hurst'sCase, 4 Dali. 387. The object is not to restrain proceed- ings in the atate court, but is to prevent abuse of the privi- leges Of this court. This proceeding, of itself , has no relation to the subject of litigation in the stateCourt, but rests upon the fact that a litigant in this court has been draven into liti- gation there in violation of the protection which all courts furnish toliti^rits before them, without regard to the subject of that litigation. That subject •hits been alluderd to mereiy to show fiill knowledge on the part of those engaged. The pfoceeding rosts upou'the idea that whftt wfts done #as a corit- tempt, which tho court shtttld punish. 1 Greenl. Ev. § 216';' MeNeWs Gase, 6 Mass.' 264. * Still, this court, "as are ailfed- «ral coilrtff, is limited in-its power to punioh for Conieiiipt; Their pOwer extends only to misbeha'^ior in presence of the •cotlrt, or so near*as to obstructthe administration of justice, or of offiieers of the court, and to disobedience or resistance to' any la^vful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of the courts. Eev. St. U. S. § 725. �The master was acting under the authority of the coart -when he made the order. A distuiJbance of the master's proceedings would have been a cOntempt of the court; and, had any one undertaken by force to prevent the defendants from attending the examination of witnesses ofdered, prob- ably no one would contend it was not a contempt. This interference was of the same nature; still, it is not punish- able as a contempt unless it was done in disobedience of, or resistance to, an order of the court. This does not mean a written order always, but only an exercise of authority, con- ��� �
