Questions of fact will not be considered. . . . The court will only review the evidence to ascertain and determine whether a total absence of testimony upon a material fact leaves the findings or verdict destitute of evidential support"); Carroll v Grand Rapids City Comm, 266 Mich. 123, 126; 253 N.W. 240 (1934) ("`On certiorari questions of law only are reviewable'" [citation omitted]); In re Gilliland, 284 Mich. 604, 612; 280 N.W. 63 (1938) ("On certiorari we do not pass on the weight of the evidence or the credibility of witnesses. There being some evidence to support the finding of the trial judge, we cannot disturb it on certiorari"); Great Lakes Greyhound v UAWCIO, 341 Mich. 290, 304; 67 N.W.2d 105 (1954), quoting In re Gilliland, supra at 612; Leenknegt v McCormick Industries, 349 Mich. 430, 432; 84 N.W.2d 881 (1957), quoting Jackson, supra at 120; Trojan v Taylor Twp, 352 Mich. 636, 640-641; 91 N.W.2d 9 (1958), quoting Leenknegt, supra at 432, quoting Jackson, supra at 120; Scallen v State Health Comm'r, 376 Mich. 64, 71-72; 135 N.W.2d 426 (1965) (SOURIS, J., dissenting) ("`The office of a certiorari is not however to review questions of fact, but questions of law. And in examining into the evidence the appellate court does so not to determine whether the probabilities preponderate one way or the other but simply to determine whether the evidence is such that it will justify the finding as a legitimate inference from the facts proved, whether that inference would or would not have been drawn by the appellate tribunal'"); id. at 80 (opinion of O'HARA, J.) ("The narrow limits of review by certiorari are pointed out by Mr. Justice SOURIS.

Hence, it was appropriate for the Court to impose a determinate, criminal sanction upon Smith. It would have been improper to impose a coercive sanction. In Great Lakes Greyhound Lines v Int'l Union, UAW-CIO, 341 Mich. 290; 67 N.W.2d 105 (1954), app dis 350 U.S. 804 (1955), the defendants, including several individual officers of the union, were temporarily enjoined from establishing or maintaining a picket line at the plaintiff's garages. The plaintiff petitioned for an order to show cause to hold the defendants in contempt of court when they violated the temporary injunction.

This aspect has been repeatedly recognized in Michigan. People, ex rel. Messler, v. Simonson, 9 Mich. 492; In re Chadwick, 109 Mich. 588, 596; Great Lakes Greyhound Lines v. International Union, UAW-CIO, 341 Mich. 290, 301, appeal dismissed, 350 U.S. 804 ( 76 S Ct 45, 100 L ed 723). Consequently, Judge Noe did not err when he stated:

There being no total lack of evidence to support the finding of the trial court, we will not disturb it on certiorari or on review thereof. Gaines v. Betts, 2 Doug (Mich) 98; Randolph v. City of Dearborn, 298 Mich. 224; Great Lakes Greyhound Lines v. International Union, UAW-CIO, 341 Mich. 290. There is no error of law in this case."

The order of the court being void for want of jurisdiction over the subject matter, we cannot remit to such court the fruitless task of ascertaining whether or not certain acts of the defendants constituted a "contempt" of the void order. The holding in Great Lakes Greyhound Lines v. International Union, UAW-CIO, 341 Mich. 290, is not to the contrary. We did not, in that case, find the court's order void for lack of jurisdiction.

There being no total lack of evidence to support the finding of the trial court, we will not disturb it on certiorari or on review thereof. Gaines v. Betts, 2 Doug (Mich) 98; Randolph v. City of Dearborn, 298 Mich. 224; Great Lakes Greyhound Lines v. International Union, UAW-CIO, 341 Mich. 290. There is no error of law in this case. Judgment should be affirmed.