Subcontractor's Right in Oil or Gas Leasehold. Under a statute giving a subcontractor a right of lien on an oil or gas leasehold to the same extent as the original contractor, an agreement that there shall be no liability until the work is completed is equally binding on the subcontractor. Christy vs. Union Oil and Gas Company, - Okla., 114 Pac. 740. Life Tenant's Right to Explore for Oil. A life tenant has no right to grant the right of explor ation for oil and gas and to profit from its discovery, [why not pro tanto?] Rupel et al. vs. Ohio oil Co., et al. 95 N. E. 225 Oil Well-Not a Mine. An oil well is not a mine and operation of a well is not a mining operation within article 230 of the Louisiana Constitution exempting property so used from certain classes of taxes. Guffey Petroleum Co. Murrel. Interstate Commerce as to Natural Gas. 53 So. 704. Natural gas after severance from the soil being a com modity which may be dealt in like all other products of the earth and a legitimate subject of interstate commerce no State can prohibit its being transported in interstate commerce beyond the lines of the State, and the act of Oklahoma attempting to do so is unconstitu tional interference with interstate commerce. A State may by proper legislation regulate the removal from the earth of natural gas by the owner thereof, but may not discriminate against corporations doing an interstate business by denying them the right to cross highways of the State while domestic corporations engaged in the same business are permitted to use the highways. 224 U. S. 217. CURRENT DECISIONS OF THE CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEALS OF OKLAHOMA. BENJAMIN M. FLATHERS, Plaintiff in Error, VS. No. A-1313 STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Defendant in Error. (Rendered Aug. 21st, 1912.) Appeal from District Court of Ellis County. G. A. Brown, trial Judge. Appeal dismissed 1. Under the constitution (Art. 7, Sec. 2), and the statute section 1916 and 1917 Snyder's Statutes, the Criminal Court of Appeals has exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review and correct proceedings of inferior courts in criminal cases. Neither the constitution nor the statute has conferred on this court jurisdiction to remedial proceedings as for a contempt. 2. A proceeding against a party for contempt for an alleged violation of an order of the court in a civil action, is a civil proceeding. 3. Wilful disobedience of an order of the court in a civil action is not criminal contempt; in such a case the punishment is only ordered for the purpose of enforcing such order. 4. A person imprisoned as punishment for criminal contempt, properply so called, is imprisoned in execution under a sentence for a crime. (Syllabus by the court.) C. B. Leedy, and Aubuchon, for plaintiff in Error. Opinion of the Court by DOYLE, Judge. The judgment and order of commitment sought to be reversed in this case was rendered in a proceeding instituted against plaintiff in error for an alleged contempt of court. Said Judgment is as follows: Emily J. Flathers, Plaintiff VS. Benjamin M. Flashers, Defendant. Case pending in the District Court of Ellis On this fifth day of August 1911, this cause came on for a hearing upon the matter of contempt charged against the defendant, Benjamin M. Flathers, and the court being fully advised in the premises, finds that the defendant, Benjamin M. Flathers, has disobeyed various orders of the Court requiring him to pay certain sums as alimony in the above entitled cause, and especially has he disobeyed the order of this Court made on the 14th day of July 1911, requiring him to pay $70.00 to Emily J. Flathers within six days after service of said order upon him, said sum being the aggregate amount of payments ordered to be made by him as alimony up to and including the 19th day of July 1911, And the Court finds that the defendant refused to comply with the order to make said payments in the case of Emily J. Flathers against Benjamin M. Flathers, and that the defendant was able to make such payments, and that the defendant is in contempt of this court in refusing to comply with said orders. It is therefore ordered by the court that the defendant, Benjamin M. Flathers. be committed to the County Jail of Ellis County, Oklahoma, until the said order of this court is complied with; or until he shall execute and deliver to said Emily J. Flathers a quit claim deed for all claim by him in and to lots 18, 19, and 20 in Block 4 of McCrates Addition to the Town of Shattuck, in said Ellis county, together with the appurtenances thereunto incident and belonging. Upon the execution and delivery of the quit claim deed as herein above stated, or upon payments of said sum of $70.00 to Emily J. Flathers, together with all costs in this behalf incurred, the said Benjamin M. Flathers shall be released from said prison and custody. It is further ordered that the said defendant, Benjamin M. Flathers, who is now present, be and he is hereby committed to the custody of the Sheriff of said Ellis County, who is hereby ordered and directed to enforce this order. Witness my hand in Chambers in the city of Mangum, in Greer County Oklahoma, this 5th day of Aug. 1911. C. A. Brown, District Judge of the 18th Judicial district of Oklahoma, including Ellis and Greer counties. Filed Aug. 8th, 1911. O. E. Null, Clerk of Dist. Court. The Attorney General has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal because as shown by the record the contempt proceedings are civil, not criminal and this court has no jurisdiction. We are clearly of the opinion that the motion should be sustained and the only order that can properly be made by the court is one dismissing the purported appeal. While this court has jurisdiction to review an order or judgment committing a person for a criminal contempt, neither the constitution or the statute has conferred on this court jurisdiction to review remedial proceedings as for a contempt, where the matter of contempt consists of the disobedience of orders or decrees rendered in civil actions. At common law, judgments of Superior Courts of record in matters of contempt were final, and reviewable in any other court upon appeal or writ of error. By statute in some states the remedy by appeal and writ of error has been given. There is no good reason, however, in any case that we have examined. why cases of criminal contempt are not subject to review in some manner by an appellate court. In an able article on criminal contempts, in the Criminal Law Magazine, vol. 5, P 647 the distinguished writer Mr: Seymour D. Thompson says with regard to jurisdictions in which writ of error and appeals lie: "In several of the American states, under the opera tion of constitutional or statutory provisions, and perhap in one or two cases, by judicial decisions contrary to the general course of authority, writs of error lie in the Supreme Court, or other appellate court, to revise the final judgments or orders of the inferior courts in proceedings for contempt *** Most of the decisions which relate to the inquiry under what circumstances appeals lie in proceedings for contempt, arise out of that use of process of contempt which, as explained in a former article, was in courts of equity simply a process of execution; in other words, in what are called remedial proceedings as for contempt; and the inquiry, for the most part, is whether the order appealed from is final and dispositive of a substantial right, or interlocutory merely. The general rule, varied in some jurisdictions by local statutes, perhaps by judicial decisions, is that such orders are appealable. On the other hand, proceedings as for contempt, which, in their nature, are interlocutory only, are not appealable." Contempts of court are of two kinds, civil and criminal. Much confusion exists in judicial decisions as to whether or not contempt proceedings are civil or criminal. As a general rule, those designations must be considered with reference to the specific question before the court. In the article of Mr. Thompson above referred to he says: "The boundary between these two kinds of contempt is, in many cases. shadowy; but the substantial distinction is that one is a mode of execution of judgments and decrees in civil cases, while the other is punishment for an offense of a criminal nature. The distinction is said to be this: "If the contempt consist in the refusal of a party to do something which he is ordered to do for the benefit or advantage of the opposite party, the process is civil, and he stands committed until he complies with the order. The order in such a case is not punitive, but executive. If, on the other hand, the contempt consists in a threatened act injurious to the other party the process is criminal, and conviction is followed by a penalty |