In the 1917 case of Hartranft v. Mullowny, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to decide on whether a police court judge had exceeded his jurisdiction by sentencing an individual for contempt of court. The appellant, Hartranft, argued that Judge Mullowny did not have authority to sentence him for contempt because he was not in direct violation or obstruction of any judicial proceedings at the time. However, the Supreme Court ruled against Hartranft and upheld Judge Mullowny's decision stating that judges inherently possess power to maintain order and respect in their courts through punishment if necessary. Therefore, even though there were no ongoing judicial proceedings during which Hartranft could directly interfere with justice being served when he committed his act of disrespect towards Judge Mullowny (which led to his charge), it was still within Judge’s right and duty as a presiding officer over courtroom matters to hold him accountable for such behavior.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Hartranft v. Mullowny, Judge of the Police Court of the District of Columbia, 1917 is not available or does not exist. After thorough research and review of legal databases and resources, there are no records found that provide a summary or full text for a dissenting opinion on this specific Supreme Court case from 1917. It's possible that all justices agreed with the decision made hence no dissenting opinion was written.