In what circumstances will a defendant be found guilty of wilful violation of a court order?

We do hold in the case before us that such knowledge as a defendant must be shown to possess, in order to be found guilty of willful violation of a court order, may be shown by evidence that he was personally served with the order, and that he knew that fact. If the bulk of the order or the time between service and arrest are important, they are no more [236 Cal.App.2d Supp. 940] important than a defendant's outright denial of any knowledge of the order. See Freeman v. Superior Court, 44 Cal.2d 533, 282 P.2d 857. There the only evidence of knowledge in the defendant was that his attorney was in court when the order was made, and that his attorney was served with a copy of the order. The court held there was a disputable presumption 'that notice to or knowledge possessed by an agent is imputable to the principal * * *' (44 Cal.2d at page 537, 282 P.2d at page 860) (emphasis added); and that presumption was sufficient to sustain a finding of knowledge in the face of defendant's uncontradicted testimony to the contrary.