To the same effect is the case of Ex parte Logan, 33 Okla. 659, 126 P. 800. In Ex parte Krouch et al., 63 Okla. 105, 162 P. 1084, the Supreme Court said: "Petitioners were also denied the right to be heard.
E.F. Blanchard demanded a jury trial; the court in refusing it denied him a constitutional right. The judgment of the court and the order of commitment are void. Phillips v. State, 77 Okla. 276, 188 P. 332; Ex parte Nichols, 16 Okla. Cr. 159, 181 P. 518; Wood v. Wood, 70 Oklahoma, 174 P. 269; Farmers' State Bank v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 283, 164 P. 132, L. R. A. 1917 E. 551; Ex parte Crouch, 63 Okla. 105, 162 P. 1084; McKee et al. v. deGraffenried, 33 Okla. 136, 124 P. 303; Ex parte Sullivan, 10 Okla. Cr. 465, 138 P. 815. The referee has set out other conclusions of law, on some of which the respective parties have taken issue. Under the views already expressed, the relief asked for by the petitioners will have to be granted; therefore, it is unnecessary to enter into a discussion of any other questions raised. If any errors did occur, other than those we have already disposed of, they will probably not occur again.
"The disobedience of an order of the trial court to pay alimony and counsel fees in a divorce suit is an indirect, as distinguished from a direct contempt." It having been settled that the contempt of court with which plaintiff in error was charged was an indirect contempt, section 2279, Rev. Laws 1910, supra, is mandatory. Ex parte Krouch, 63 Okla. 105, 162 P. 1084; Farmers' State Bank v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 283, 164 P. 132, L. R. A. 1917E, 551. The trial court therefore erred in refusing the demand of the plaintiff in error for a jury trial.
In the case at bar petitioner was not convicted of a public offense, but the proceeding against him was civil in its nature, and the imprisonment was not imposed as a punishment for any offense committed by him, but was remedial in its nature, and was imposed for the purpose of coercing defendant to do that which he was commanded to do. Gompers v. Buck B. R. Co., 221 U.S. 418, 31 Sup. Ct. 492, 55 L.Ed. 797, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 874. The right to a trial by jury was statutory, and might be had upon demand being made therefor. If no demand was made, the court might properly try the case. In Ex parte Sullivan, 10 Okla. Cr. 165, 138 P. 815, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 719, petitioner was charged with a criminal contempt and was denied an opportunity to be heard and punishment imposed in violation of section 25 of the Bill of Rights. Likewise in Ex parte Krouch et al., 63 Okla. 105, 162 P. 1084, petitioners, in addition to being denied a trial by jury, were also adjudged guilty of contempt and punishment imposed without an opportunity to be heard, and were properly discharged. In the case at bar petitioner was afforded an opportunity to be heard and was heard in his own defense, and his defense adjudged insufficient, and punishment only imposed after a full hearing.