The ruling was a finding that Lincoln had arrested the court's procedings and that Porter's responsibility in the actions transfered directly to Lincoln. Since the case itself was a contempt hearing against Porter, the charge of contempt would necessarily be among that which was assumed by Lincoln himself. They phrased it in a very careful and clever way so as not to berate the office of the presidency but the message they sent to Lincoln was also very clear - he had acted in contempt.
The judges were clear perturbed that they could not run roughshod over the Adminsitration in a time of war.
You got it backwards there buddy. No judge was trying to "run roughshod" over the administration - they were simply trying to meet as a three judge panel of their court! Lincoln obstructed them from meeting by placing one of the judges under house arrest. In doing so he violated the separation of powers and ran roughshod over the judiciary himself.
maybe you could give us the reference
Already did. Here it is again: 2 Hay. & Haz. 394; 1861 U.S. App
They were meeting to hear an issue in which they had no jurisdiction. They were attempting to act as a rogue court. This is precisely why the Suspension Clause was proposed and exists.
Your reference to the case is fine. It is your credential-less interpretation of it that is suspect.