Opinion
April 16, 1924.
May 5, 1924.
Habeas corpus — Contempt of court — Purging — Appeal quashed.
An appeal from an order, adjudging an appellant in contempt of court, will be quashed, when counsel advise the Superior Court that the appellant purged himself of the contempt before appealing.
Appeal, No. 122, April T., 1924, by respondent, from decree of C.P. Somerset Co., Sept. T., 1923, No. 86, in the case of Commonwealth ex rel. Marie Weigley Wilhelm v. Harry E. Weigley.
Before PORTER, HENDERSON, TREXLER, KELLER, LINN and GAWTHROP, JJ. Appeal quashed.
Petition for writ of habeas corpus. Before BERKEY, P.J.
The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.
The court below entered the following decree:
And now, October 15, 1923, this cause was argued on petition and answer, but an examination of the pleadings reveals disputed questions of fact which can only be determined upon testimony offered by the parties. The only question before the court that can be considered in this proceeding is to determine whether or not the respondent is guilty of contempt of court, and an order thereon will carry with it the custody of the child. The case is remanded to the argument list for the reasons above set forth.
Now, December 18, 1923 the respondent, Harry E. Weigley, is hereby adjudicated to be in contempt of the decree of the court dated June 2, 1923, and directs that an attachment issue unless the custody of the child is restored to its mother by December 29, 1923.
December 18, 1923, the respondent excepts to the decree of the court, whereupon the exception is noted as requested and bill sealed.
Error assigned was the decree of the court.
J.J. Kinter, and with him Harry G. Gress, for appellant.
Daryle B. Heckman, for appellee.
Argued April 16, 1924.
This is an appeal from an order adjudging appellant in contempt in proceedings in habeas corpus. At bar, counsel advised the court that appellant had purged himself of the contempt. No question remains for our consideration. Appeal quashed.