UNITED STATKS V. MEMPHI3 te LITTLB ROCK R. CO. 239 �and messenger are, therefore, fined $50 eaeh, and will stand' committed to the ]'ail of Shelby oounty till the fine and costs are paid. The general manager shows satisfaotorily, I am glad to say, that he was in Texas, and neither signed iioi' authorized the telegrams which directed disobedienee of the injunction, and which some parties, unknown to this oourty sent in his name, without his knowledge- or consent. He ad- vised and counselled obedience when firat he had knowledge of the injunction. He is discharged. So the other agents responding to the raie to show cause may be discharged. They only ref used to act at the request of the ielators in git- ing orders to the two agents already fined, who were willing to take the responsibility. It is not neeesSary to determine whetber they bad superior autbority which would have beetf recognized by the guilty respOndents, becaiise they simpiy; did nothing and declined to interfere. �As to the corporation itself, I am satiefied it may be piin ished under our statutes by a fine, and that the court is not confined to the remedy against the directors individually, or such other responsible persons as may be discovered as the authors of the telegrams and orders. In England it is or was not usual to punish a contempt by a fine, even in tho= case of nalural persons. They were "to stand committed to Wbitecross-street prison." The ordeir gave specifie diiec- tions for purging the contempt where the case irequired, and the imprisonment continued until they were complied withl' It was sometimes required that this imprisonment shouldiast until a money award, in the nature of compensation, was paid to the party injured ; but I do not find, in the limite'd' investigation I have been able to make during these proeeed- ings, that a fine was ever imposed in the nature of a penalty to the crown, though it may be so. Obedience to an injunc-: tion against privileged persons and corporations was sonie- times enforced by sequestration, which placed the propetty of the contemnor in custody until obedience was given. 2 Dan'l, Ch. Pr. (5tb Ed.) 1685, 1687; 2 Bish. Cr. L. (6tb Ed.y §§ 241, 273; Spokes v. BmhuryBoard of Health, L. E; IBq.' 42, and cases cited by these authorities, Our Eovised'Stat- ��� �
