FISCHER V. HAYES. 71 �ing for a contempt is against a witness, or a person not a party to the suit, the praetice is to entitle the order for attachment, and ail subsequent proceedings thereon in the name of 2'ke People on the relation, etc. Stafford v. Brown, 4 Paige, 360. �(3) It is contended that, as the order of February 17th, adjudging the contempt, ordered that the defendant pay, as a fine, the amount of ail costs, etc., and did not order that the defendant stand committed, etc., the order of March 13th was void, because it ordered the defendant to stand com- mitted, etc. It is also claimed that the court exhausted jts power in making the order of February 17th, and that, even if it did not, it had no power to order the defendant to be committed until the fine should be paid. ' The order of Feb- ruary 17th adjudged the guilt, and ordered that the defend- ant should pay, as a fine, what should, on an investigation ordered, be ascertained to be the amount of certain expenses. The order did not specify any amount as a fine. The subse- quent order specified the amount ascertained on the investiga- tion, and ordered that it be paid by the defendant as a fine for the contempt within 30 days from the order, and that if not paid the defendant stand committed till it be paid, and that when paid it be paid over to the plaintiii in re-imbursement. �It is suggested that section 725 provides for the punish- ment of a contempt by fine or imprisonment, and that, there- fore, a commitment for non-payment of the fine is unlawful, because such commitment is imprisonment. There is, how- ever, no commitment or imprisonment if the fine be paid. There is not commitment and fine. The punishment by a fine is fully inflicted, under the terms of the order, if the fine be paid as the order directs, and in such case there can be no commitment. So, if there be a commitment for non-pay- ment of the fine, there must be a discharge as soon as the fine is paid. The payment of the fine is the punishment. The awarding or infliction of the fine is no punishment. The commitment is an incident of the fine. It is not, in any man- ner, the "imprisonment" allowed by the statute. The pay- ment of the fine, and a commitment for not paying it, cannot co-exist. The commitment is not a separate punishment or ��� �
