The argument in support of this defense is that the defendant, before the case in which he testified was closed, admitted that he had testified falsely, and then told the truth; and that as a result of his recantation or retraction the court was not deceived and there was no obstruction of justice, therefore no contempt. In support of this proposition counsel for defendant cites People v. Gillette, 126 App. Div. 665; 111 N.Y.S. 133;United States v. Turk ( D.C., N.Y.), 10 F. Supp. 957; Inre Michael, 66 Sup. Ct. Rep. 78; 28 U.S.C.A. 385; In re Gottman ( C.C.A., N.Y., 1941), 118 Fed. Rep. 2d 425; and a few other cases from other jurisdictions on the subject of recantation; and In re Jibb, 123 N.J. Eq. 251; Backer v. A.B. B. Realty Co., supra; Sachs v. High Clothing Co., supra; Inre Ries, 101 N.J. Eq. 315; Ivens v. Empire Floor and Wall TileCo., 119 N.J. Eq. 273; In re Singer, 105 N.J. Eq. 220, and ExParte Hudgings, 249 U.S. 378, in support of the contention that perjury which does not actually obstruct justice is not contempt. In the Gillette Case, it was held that false testimony if corrected by the witness before the termination of the proceedings in which it is given will not sustain an indictment for perjury.

The argument in support of this defense is that the defendant, before the case in which he testified was closed, admitted that he had testified falsely, and then told the truth; and that as a result of his recantation or retraction the Court was not deceived and there was no obstruction of justice, therefore no contempt. In support of this proposition counsel for defendant cites People v. Gillette, 126 App.Div. 665, 111 N.Y.S. 133; United States v. Turk, D.C.N.Y., 10 F.Supp. 957; In re Michael, 326 U.S. 224, 66 S.Ct. 78; 28 U.S.C.A. § 385; In re Gottman, 2 Cir., 1941, 118 F.2d 425; and a few other cases from other jurisdictions on the subject of recantation; and In re Jibb, 123 N.J.Eq. 251, 197 A. 12; Backer v. A. B. & B. Realty Co., supra; Sachs v. High Clothing Co., supra; In re Ries, 101 N.J.Eq. 315, 138 A. 586; Ivens v. Empire Floor & Wall Tile Co., 119 N.J.Eq. 273, 182 A. 255; In re Singer, 105 N.J.Eq. 220, 147 A. 328; and Ex parte Hudgings, 249 U.S. 378, 39 S.Ct. 337, 63 L.Ed. 656, 11 A.L.R. 333, in support of the contention that perjury which does not actually obstruct justice is not contempt. In the Gillette case, it was held that false testimony if corrected by the witness before the termination of the proceedings in which it is given will not sustain an indictment for perjury.

This mandate is also the majority rule. See, e.g., Gompers v. U.S., 233 U.S. 604, 34 S.Ct. 693, 58 L.Ed. 1115 (1914); Pate v. Toler, 190 Ark. 465, 79 S.W.2d 444 (1935); Gordon v. Com., 141 Ky. 461, 133 S.W. 206 (1911); Com. v. Gallarelli, 372 Mass. 573, 362 N.E.2d 923 (1977); In re Jibb, 123 N.J Eq. 251, 197 A. 12 (1938); Higginbotham v. Com., 206 Va. 291, 142 S.E.2d 746 (1965); State v. Phipps, 174 Wn. 443, 24 P.2d 1073 (1933). The annotation at 100 A.L.R.2d 439, 442 notes: "A different situation exists where punishment for the acts constituting direct contempt is barred by a statute of limitations, with the majority of cases taking the viewpoint that in such a situation the power of the court to punish for contempt is lost."

In Staley, supra ( 83 N.J. Eq., at p. 305), the Court of Errors and Appeals quoted from the foregoing excerpt from Gompers and said (at p. 304) that "Criminal contempts, on the other hand, as the term implies, are offences against organized society which, although they may arise in the course of private litigation, are not a part thereof, but, like other criminal offences, raise an issue between the public and the accused." See also In re Jibb, 123 N.J. Eq. 251, 252 ( E. A. 1938); State v. Zarafu, 35 N.J. Super. 177, 182 ( App. Div. 1955); State v. Janiec, 25 N.J. Super. 197, 200 ( App. Div. 1953); Zimmerman v. Zimmerman, 12 N.J. Super. 61, 66 ( App. Div. 1950); In re Bozorth, 38 N.J. Super. 184, 188 ( Ch. Div. 1955). N.J.S. 2 A:10-1 deals with the power of the courts "to punish for contempt."

" The principle of the Gompers case was followed in U.S. v.Goldman, 277 U.S. 229, 48 S. Ct. 486, 72 L. Ed. 862, and In reJibb et al., 123 N.J. Eq. 251, 197 A. 12. In the latter case Justice BODINE of the Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey, held a proceeding for contempt, based on the making of a false affidavit in a chancery case, analogous to a criminal charge of perjury and barred by a two-year limitation applicable to such crimes.

While perjury and false swearing may be punished separately as offenses against the State and as offenses against the court and while false swearing alone may support a charge of contempt even though it could not on its facts constitute perjury, contempt may be found wherever and whenever defendant's deliberate and unjustifiable acts offend the court within the intendment of the rules and statute. In re Jibb, 121 N.J. Eq. 531, rev'd on other grounds 123 N.J. Eq. 251 (N.J.Err. App. 1937); In re Caruba, 139 N.J. Eq. 404, aff'd 140 N.J. Eq. 563 pet. den. 142 N.J. Eq. 358 (Ch.Div.) cert. den. 335 U.S. 846, 69 S.Ct. 69, 93 L.Ed. 396 (1947).

For other cases of contempt, see Seastream v. New Jersey Exhibition Co., 69 N.J. Eq. 15 ( Ch. 1905), affirmed 72 N.J. Eq. 377 ( E. A. 1907); McCauley v. McCauley, 88 N.J. Eq. 392, 395 ( Ch. 1918); and Sachs v. High Clothing Co., 90 N.J. Eq. 545 ( Ch. 1919), papers filed with the court; In re Bowers, 89 N.J. Eq. 307 ( Ch. 1918), a threat made out of court to a solicitor; In re Megill, 114 N.J. Eq. 604 ( Ch. 1933), a resolution of a municipal governing body criticizing the court; cf. In re Jibb, 123 N.J. Eq. 251 ( E. A. 1938), taking a false affidavit, "to be used" in Chancery, held not in the court's presence. This is a substantial body of authority, and we do not think we should dismiss it and substitute our own view.