FISCHER V. HATES. 63 �pending against the bankrupts at the time bf their appoM- me;nt, a.na had a right to appear and defend any interest represented by them in the litigation , pending bere or else- •whore. If ' they should now apply to be let in as defendants, it ought pirobably to bci petmitted, unless their laches 'opera te to prevent, but on such terms as to proceeding in the cause and the filial hearing as would produee the least delay. If defendant Hunt has a claim for contribution from the estate of the bankrupts, the defendants, or any of them,'in case he is decreed liable in this suit, no reason is seen why ho inay not intervene in the bankruptcy proceedings as to such con- tingent claim, and have an order that will prevent the asstts being distributed untU his rights can be ascertained. Petition denied. ���PisoHEB V. Haies. {Circuit Court, 8. D. New Tork. January 26, 1881.) �L CONTEMPT— FiNB — JUBOMKNT. �A contempt of court is a specifie criminal offence, and the impod- tion of a fine for such contempt Is a judgment in a criminal case. �2. Bamb—Judgmknt— Expiration dp Tbbm. �The court has no power to vary such judgment after the expiration . of the tenu ut which the fine was imposed. �3. Bamb — Obder of Court— Recitai.. �The order adjudging the contempt need not recite the ofifence, where the latter is set f orth with sufflcient particularity in the affidavits and reports filed in the proceedings, and the order is connected therewith by sufflcient reference. �4i Samb^Samh— Samb. �Au order adjudging contempt for the violation ot an injunction need not recite that such injunction waa lawf ul. �6. Same— Obbbr Madb in Original Suit. �In proceedings in equity between parties to the suit, for contempt in not obeying an order in the cause, the fine for such contempt can be imposed by an order made in the original suit. ��� �
