r43 ���FEDBEAL EEPOETEE. ���be oHiged to state that the man claimed to represent the defence, and leave no time to disabuse tbeir minds, �He furilier says that his action in maintaining his position for an acquittai upon the jury was in accordance with his judgment upon the evidence, as confirmed by the charge of the court, and that, added to this, the information that he had received as before stated, convincing him of indirect methods having been used to influence him, the respondent, impelled him to maintain the innocence of said Eothschild on the jury to the last. He further denied receiving money or any other consideration for his vote upon the jury, and submitted that his conduct had been free from censure. �S. M. Cutcheon, District Attorney, and H. J. Bealces, for the government. �John Atkinson and Theodore Romcyn, for respondent. �Beown, J. By Eey. St. § 725, the power of the federal courts to punish for contempts is limited to three classes of cases : First, a misbehavior of any person in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice; second, misbehavior of any officer of the court in his oiEcial transactions; and, third, disobedience or resistance of any ofScer, party, juror, witness or other person, to any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree or command of the courts. Ex parte Robinson, 19 Wall. 505, 511. �It is not necessary here to discuss the question whether, in the absence of the express order of the court to the jury to refrain from conversing with any one regarding the case, a juror could be punished for such misconduct. It would seem, hovrever, that such violation of duty might be reaohed under the first class of cases, as the misbehavior of a person so near the presence of the court as to obstruct the administration of justice therein. The act does not deane how near the court the misbehavior must be, nor the character of such misbe- havior, and I think it may be fairly construed to extend to any misbehavior by a juror, in his capaeity as such, -wherever committed, siuce such misbehavior necessarily tends to ob- struct the administration of justice. U. S. v. Devaughan, S Gr. G. C. 84; State v. Doty, 32 N. J. 403. Otherwise it would ��� �
