Neither receipt of a copy of the order nor knowledge of its exact words were conditions precedent to her obligation to comply with it. See Cotton Mills v. Local 584, 251 N.C. 240, 147, 111 S.E.2d 471, 475 (1959); 3 Strong's North Carolina Index 3rd, Contempt of Court 3.1 (1977). The court's finding that "[p]laintiff has advised Gambell and Gila Clark that they did not have to visit with the defendant or the Grandmother [Mrs. Proffitt] unless they wanted to, in violation of the Order of November 24, 1975, and other Orders of this Court" is likewise supported by competent record evidence.
Appellant Fred Driver's exceptions 1, 2, 8, and 19, and appellant Booe's exceptions 2, 4, and 13 are expressly abandoned by appellants. Fred Driver's exceptions 9 and 18 are taken as abandoned, no reason or argument having been stated nor authorities cited in support of the assignments based upon them. Harmon v. Harmon, 245 N.C. 83, 95 S.E.2d 355; Cotton Mills v. Local 584, 251 N.C. 240, 111 S.E.2d 471. Appellant Fred Driver assigned as error the court's submission of the issue as to his negligence in entrusting his automobile to appellant Booe, and the court's denial of his motion for peremptory instructions on the issue.
On 29 April 1959, Judge Bickett, with the consent of counsel for petitioner and respondent, ordered the show cause order to be heard before Judge Mallard at the aforesaid Special Criminal Term of Court. The relevant parts of Judge Bickett's temporary restraining order are set out in the case of Henderson Cotton Mills v. Local union No. 584, Textile Workers Union of America (AFL-CIO), Doug Rose, et al., ante, 240, 111 S.E.2d 471, docketed here as Number 393, to which reference is hereby made. It would be supererogatory to repeat them here. This case, in which the show cause order here was issued, was instituted on 13 February 1959, and within due time, summons, copies of the complaint and of the temporary restraining order were served on the defendants. Defendants, and each one of them, filed an answer.
Judge Mallard's findings of fact in both orders support his conclusions in both orders and his orders based thereon. Erwin Mills v. Textile Workers Union, 234 N.C. 321 67 S.E.2d 372; Erwin Mills v. Textile Workers Union, 235 N.C. 107, 68 S.E.2d 813; Wood Turning Co. v. Wiggins, supra; Henderson Cotton Mills v. Local Union No. 584, Textile Workers union of America (AFL-CIO), Doug Rose, et al. docketed here as Number 393, ante, 240, 111 S.E.2d 471. Respondents' assignment of error Number Three is overruled. Judge Mallard's orders are