Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

Army and Navy § 148.

69. U. S. v. McDonald, 265 Fed. 754; Hamilton v. McClaughry, 136 Fed. 445; Peo. v. County Jail, 100 N. Y. 20, 2 NE 870, 3 N. Y. Cr. 545 [rev 34 Hun 393].

[a] Jurisdiction not presumed. It has been held that a judgment of a court-martial, when questioned collaterally, is of no force or effect, unless accompanied by proof of the jurisdiction of facts on which authority to render the judgment depends, and that the mere recital of such facts of record is not sufficient. Peo. v. County Jail, 100 N. Y. 20, 2 NE 870, 3 N. Y. Cr. 545 [rev 34 Hun 393]. 70. Carter v. Roberts, 177 U. S. 496, 20 SCt 713, 44 L. ed. 638.

71. Ex p. Dickey, 204 Fed. 322. 72. Ex p. Townsend, 133 Fed. 74; In re Cadwallader, 127 Fed. 881.

[a] The statute of limitations is matter of defense within the rule. Ex p. Townsend, 133 Fed. 74.

[b] Habeas corpus lies to prevent delivery to the military authorities for trial as a deserter of a draft registrant who failed to get notice of his induction into military service and heard nothing more of the matter until after hostilities, when the draft board had discontinued. Farley v. Ratliff, 267 Fed. 682.

73. 74. p 883. 75.

Ex p. Dickey, 204 Fed. 322.
Bail generally see Bail 6 C. J.

See statutory provisions.
[a] Federal courts. Rev. St.
753. forbids the granting of habeas
corpus, by the federal courts, except
for causes therein specified, which
precludes grant of the writ because
petitioner was denied admission
bail pending a writ of error which
he had sued out in the state court.
In re Humason, 46 Fed. 388.

to

[b] In New York, Code Civ. Proc. 2035, formerly part of the Habeas Corpus Act, limits the right to the writ for bail to prisoners who have been committed for a criminal of fense. In re Gorsline, 10 AbbPr 282, 21 How Pr 85.

76. U. S.-U. S. v. Hamilton, 3 Dall. 17, 1 L. ed. 490.

Ala.-Ex p. State, 205 Ala. 11. 87
S 594; State v. Lowe, 204 Ala. 288, 85
S 707; Ex p. Croom, 19 Ala. 561.
Ariz.-In re Haigler, 15 Ariz. 150,
137 P 423.

Ark.-Ex p. White, 9 Ark. 222.
Cal. Ex p. Curtis. 92 Cal. 188, 28
P 223; Ex p. Duncan, 53 Cal. 410.
Colo.-Romeo v. Downer, 69 Colo.
281. 193 P 559.

Fla. Russell v. State, 71 Fla. 236, 71 S 27; Ex p. Nathan, 50 S 38: Benjamin v. State, 25 Fla. 675, 6 S 433; Holley v. State, 15 Fla. 688; Finch v. State, 15 Fla. 633.

Ind. Ex p. Richards. 102 Ind. 260, 1 NE 639; Ex p. Sutherlin, 56 Ind. 595: Ex p. Moore, 30 Ind. 197; Ex p. Heffren, 27 Ind. 87; Lumm v. State. 3 Ind. 293; State v. Best, 7 Blackf. 611.

Iowa. Ford v. Dilley, 174 Iowa 243. 156 NW 513.

Kan. In re Rolf, 30 Kan. 758, 1 P 523.

Mich. In re Tubbs, 139 Mich. 102, 102 NW 626.

Miss.-Marley v. State, 109 Miss. 169, 68 S 75, 770: Street v. State, 43 Miss. 1; Ex p. Wray, 30 Miss. 673. Mo.-Alexander's Pet., 59 Mo. 598, 21 AmR 393.

463.

may be used to procure the admission to bail of a party entitled thereto," whether in a criminal case78 or a civil action,79 unless admittance is a matter of discretion and has been refused by the proper authorities 80 without any abuse of discre

N. D.-State v. Hartzell, 13 N. D.
356, 100 NW 745; In re West, 10
N. D. 464, 88 NW 88.
Okl.-In re Thomas, 20 Okl. 167,
93 P 980, 39 LRANS 752; In re Raid-
ler, 4 Okl. 417, 48 P 270; Ex p.
Ledington, (Cr.) 192 P 595; Ex p.
Garvin, (Cr.) 192 P 363; In re Bean,
(Cr.) 190 P 1091; Ex p. Toothaker,
15 Okl. Cr. 665, 171 P 487; Exp.
Butler, 15 Okl. Cr. 111, 175 P 132;
Ex p. Shirley, 14 Okl. Cr. 367, 171
P 339; Ex p. Beshirs, (Cr.) 166 P
73; In re Kerriel, 12 Okl. Cr. 386,
157 P 369; Ex p. Johns, 7 Okl. Cr.
488, 124 P 941; Ex p. Dykes, 6 Okl.
Cr. 162, 117 P 724; Ex p. Fraley, 3
Okl. Cr. 719, 109 P 295, 139 AmSR
988; Ex p. Holland, 2 Okl. Cr. 581,
100 P 50; Ex p. Smith, 2 Okl. Cr.
21, 99 P 893; Ex p. McClellan, 1 Okl.
Cr. 299, 97 P 1019.

R. I. In re Quigg, 34 R. I. 504,
84 A 859.

S. C.-Ex p. Jones, 15 SE 544:
State v. Jones, 32 S. C. 583, 10 SE
577; State v. Potter, 23 S. C. L. 296;
State v. Everett, 23 S. C. L. 295.

Tex.-Ex p. Ezell, 40 Tex. 451, 19
AmR 32 (wherein the application
was denied because acused was not
entitled to bail after conviction); Ex
p. Wade, 87 Tex. Cr. 500, 222 SW
979; Ex p. Funk, 85 Tex. Cr. 527,
213 SW 655; Ex p. Jones, 81 Tex. Cr.
646, 197 SW 997; Ex p. Firmin, 60
Tex. Cr. 368, 131 SW 1113; Ex p.
Pettis, 60 Tex. Cr. 288. 131 SW 1081;
Ex p. Gray, 41 Tex. Cr. 439, 55 SW
175; Ex p. Walker, 3 Tex. A. 668.

Utah.-Ex p. Springer, 1 Utah 214.
Vt. In re Dexter, 93 Vt. 304, 107
A 134.

Wash.-Packenham
Wash. 258, 79 P 786.

V. Reed, 37

W. Va.-Ex p. Hill, 51 W. Va. 536. 41 SE 903.

Eng. Kirk's Case, 5 Mod. 454. 87 Reprint 760 (application on ground of condition of health of prisoner); Barney's Case, 5 Mod. 323, 87 Reprint 683.

[a] On the lower court's refusing bail on appeal in a criminal case, habeas corpus proceedings therefor in the supreme court are the proper practice. Packenham v. Reed, 37 Wash. 258, 79 P 786.

[b] Bail will be denied where the prisoner has been refused a discharge and been remanded. In re Collins, 151 Cal. 340, 91 P 397, 129 AmSR 122 (remanded prisoner must seek admission to bail from court in which criminal proceedings are pending against him); Orr v. Jackson. 149 Iowa 641, 128 NW 958; Peo. v. Cowles, 3 Abb. Dec. (N. Y.) 507, 4 Keyes 38 [rev 34 HowPr 481] (the court has no jurisdiction, on remanding the prisoner, to determine whether the prisoner is entitled to the liberties of the jail, and to order the sheriff to take a bond for such liberties).

such sureties. In re Quigg, 34 R. I. 504, 84 A 859.

Proceedings for admission to bail see Bail §§ 212-220.

77. U. S. v. Uhl, 266 Fed. 929; Ex p. Garvin, (Okl. Cr.) 192 P 363; Ex p. Cates, 89 Tex. Cr. 504, 231 SW 396; Ex p. Crow, 89 Tex. Cr. 142, 230 SW 147; Ex p. Lewellen, 89 Tex. Cr. 57, 229 SW 326.

Right to release on bail:

In civil actions see Bail §§ 8-12.
In criminal prosecutions see Bail
§§ 167-191.

78. Ex p. State, 205 Ala. 11, 87 S 594; State v. Lowe, 204 Ala. 288, 85 S 707; Ex p. Croom, 19 Ala. 561; State v. Margo, (Ala. A.) 89 S 860; Brewer v. State, (Ala. A.) 89 S 841; Ex p. Verden, (Mo.) 237 SW 734; Ex p. Finney, (Okl. Cr.) 205 P 197; Ex p. Burton, (Okl. Cr.) 205 P 193; Ex p. Black, (Okl. Cr.) 204 P 937; Ex p. Dodds, (Okl. Cr.) 204 P 653; Ex p. Lacy, (Okl. Cr.) 203 P 1050; Ex p. Passini, (Okl. Cr.) 203 P 242; Ex p. Baker. (Okl. Cr.) 201 P 397; Ex p. Chambers, (Okl. Cr.) 201 P 393: Ex p. Phillips, (Okl. Cr.) 201 P 392; Ex p. Graham, (Okl. Cr.) 200 P 878; Ex p. Thompson, (Okl. Cr.) 200 P 718; Ex p. Dismukes, (Okl. Cr.) 200 P 267; Ex p. Golden, (Okl. Cr.) 200 P 264; Ex p. Denham, (Okl. Cr.) 198 P 515; Ex p. Dennison, (Okl. Cr.) 198 Р 514; Ex p. Garvin, (Okl. Cr.) 192 P 363; Ex p. Line, (Tex. Cr.) 235 SW 587; Ex p. Scott, (Tex. Cr.) 234 SW 533; Ex p. Cates, 89 Tex. Cr. 504, 231 SW 396; Ex p. Crow, 89 Tex. Cr. 142, 230 SW 147; Ex p. Lewellen, 89 Tex. Cr. 57, 229 SW 326; Ex p. Steen, 88 Tex. Cr. 316, 226 SW 684; Ex p. Beauchamp, 88 Tex. Cr. 315, 226 SW 684; Ex p. Argenta, 88 Tex. Cr. 41, 224 SW 891. See also cases supra note 76.

[a] Where conviction of murder is reversed on appeal, proceedings in habeas corpus will be reinstated. Ex p. Crow, 89 Tex. Cr. 142, 230 SW 147.

79. Mozorosky v. Hurlburt, (Or.) 198 P 556; In re Cazin, 56 Vt. 297; State v. Foster, 84 Wash. 58, 146 P 169. LRA1915E 340.

80. Ala.-State v. Humphrey, 125 Ala. 110, 27 S 969.

Ark. Ex p. Wheeler, 99 Ark. 201. 137 SW 803.

Cal. Ex p. Hatch, 15 Cal. A. 186, 114 P 410.

Colo.-Romeo v. Downer, 69 Colo. 281, 193 P 559.

La. In re Strickland, 41 La. Ann. 324, 6 S 577. V. Cunningham, 3

N. Y.-Peo.
Park. Cr. 531.

Okl.-Ex p. Tyler, 2 Okl. Cr. 455, 102 P 716.

Porto Rico.-Ex p. Aybar, 14 Porto Rico 549. The

[a] Res judicata.-(1) action of a committing magistrate or a court on the question of admitting to bail, although reviewable by [c] Circumstances warranting an appellate jurisdiction, is final as bail.-Where the sentence has been to other magistrates or courts of cocommuted to six months and it ap-ordinate or concurrent authority on peared that six months was not an the same question when accused unreasonable time to prepare the record and take their writ of error the prisoners were admitted to bail. Ex p. Harlan, 180 Fed. 119 [aff 218 U. S. 442, 31 SCt 44, 54 L. ed. 1101, 21 AnnCas 849].

seeks admittance to bail on habeas corpus to such a court after bail has been denied by the committing magistrate and the court of coördinate authority in the premises. Peo. v. Cunningham, 3 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) [d] Sureties perhaps insuffi- 531. (2) The jurisdiction of the cient.-A writ ordering the keeper supreme court, under Const. art of the jail to produce one committed 89, to issue writs of habeas to answer an indictment that ac- corpus, being concurrent with, but cused might give recognizance with not superior to, the jurisdiction consureties previously examined and ac- ferred on judges of the courts of cepted will be denied where it ap- appeal and district judges within pears that no proper investigation their respective circuits and diswas made as to the sufficiency of tricts by articles 104, 115, the su

Nev.-Ex p. Nagel, 41 Nev. 86, 167 P 689.

N. Y.-Peo. v. Folmsbee, 60 Barb. 480.

N. C.-State v. Herndon, 107 N. C. 934, 12 SE 268; State v. Wiley, 64 N. C. 821; State v. Edney, 60 N. C.

83

tion.81 In some jurisdictions, the statutes expressly provide that the writ lies to admit to bail in civil and criminal actions.82 The object of a prisoner in applying for the writ to secure his release on bail is immaterial. The relief obtainable is limited to admission to bail, accused not being entitled to an absolute discharge.84 The right to the writ may be waived,85 as, although there is authority to the contrary, by waiving preliminary examination, unless the waiver is under apprehension of personal violence if examination is had.88 Order for bail has been made, in habeas corpus proceedings complaining generally of the legality of the detention, on the mere verbal application of counsel for accused.89

Effect of conviction.90 After conviction, an appellate court on habeas corpus for bail pending appeal will not consider alleged errors of law committed by the trial court; 91 nor will it recognize any rule adopted by such court invariably denying bail to defendants convicted of felony.92

Proceedings for admission to bail, whether by motion or by writ of habeas corpus, have been treated elsewhere in this work,93 as has the effect of indictment against accused on the quantum of proof which he must produce.94

84.

absolute release from custody, is required by statute to admit him to bail or to fix the amount of bail.95

Admission to jail liberties. Habeas corpus is a proper remedy to procure admission to the statutory 'jail liberties" of one entitled thereto.96

98

[85] b. Excessive Bail.97 Where a prisoner is held under excessive bail, the imprisonment is illegal, and habeas corpus lies to obtain a discharge upon bail in a proper amount, whether in a criminal case" 99 or a civil action,1 subject to the rule that the writ may be denied where there is another adequate remedy.2 But in accordance with the rule that the writ will not issue in a moot case, the writ will not lie where it appears that accused is unable to furnish any bail whatsoever, or that he has furnished the bail required."

4

3

Proceedings for reduction of bail, whether by simple application to the court or by habeas corpus, have been treated elsewhere in this work."

7

[86] c. Detention after Bail Accepted. If bail has been fixed and furnished, accused is entitled to release on habeas corpus from custody in the original proceedings against him, but, where the proceedings in which the bail was given have terminated, the prisoner will not be released on habeas corpus if rearrested in other proceedings, although his bail in the first proceeding was not discharged or forfeited. And a prisoner liberated on bail, but rearrested by order of the court after 1009; Ex p. Burton, 13 Okl. Cr. 280, 164 P 135; Ex p. Caveness, 3 Okl. Cr. 205, 105 P 184; Ex p. Houghton, 1 Okl. Cr. 302, 97 P 1021; Ex p. McClellan, 1 Okl. Cr. 299, 97 P 1019.

Murphy v. McMillan, 59 Iowa 515, 13 NW 654.

Incidental admission to bail. In some jurisdictions, where a prisoner is detained for a bailable offense, the court, on denying habeas corpus for preme court will not review on [a] Illustration.-It is proper to habeas corpus the action of a dis- strike out an allegation in opposition trict judge who had jurisdiction to the granting of bail that applicaover the place where the offense tion was made in order that the apwas committed in refusing bail to plicant might obtain his freedom in accused after a full preliminary ex- order to intimidate opposing witamination. In re Strickland, 41 La. nesses. Ford v. Dilley, 174 Iowa Ann. 324, 6 S 577. (3) Under Code 243, 156 NW 513. $$ 5161, 5204, 5205, providing that judges of the probate court, justices of the peace, and certain others are committing magistrates, etc., and §§ 5223, 5229, where a justice of the peace regularly issued warrant for murder, and, on defendant's being brought before him, continued the case at his instance, and meanwhile committed him to jail, a judge of the probate court had no jurisdiction to determine on habeas corpus whether defendant was entitled to hearing and admission to bail, since his authority in the premises was not higher than that of the justice. State v. Humphrey, 125 Ala. 110, 27 S 969.

[b] Determination exclusively for police chief.-Where a city ordinance authorized the chief of police alone to take bail, and provided that he should be officially responsible for the sufficiency of the bail, it was held that, where the chief of police. acting in good faith, determined that the sureties were insufficient, his action should not be overruled on habeas corpus in the absence of abuse. Ex p. Wheeler, 99 Ark. 201, 137 SW 803.

[c] Refusal to approve bond.The action of an official in refusing to approve a bail bond will not be reviewed on habeas corpus. Ex P. Tyler, 2 Okl. Cr. 455, 102 P 716. 81. Ark. Ex p. Wheeler, 99 Ark. 201. 137 SW 803.

Cal.-Ex p. Hatch, 15 Cal. A. 114 P 410.

186,

Ida-Ex D. Schriber. 19 Ida. 531, 114 P 29, 37 LRANS 693.

La.-State v. Zummo, 115 La. 456, 39 S 442.

Porto Rico.-Ex p. Aybar, 14 Porto Rico 549.

82. See statutory provisions. [a] In Washington Remington & B. Code 1077, provides that the writ may be had for the purpose of admitting to bail in civil and criminal actions. State V. Foster, 84 Wash. 58. 146 P 169, LRA1915E 340. 83. Ford v. Dilley, 174 Iowa 243, 156 NW 513.

85. In re Malison, 36 Kan. 14 P 144.

725, Waiver of right to bail see Bail § 192.

86. Ex p. Nathan, (Fla.) 50 S
38; Benjamin v. State, 25 Fla. 675, 6
S 433.

87. In re Malison, 36 Kan. 725,
14 P 144.
88. In re Malison, 36 Kan. 725,
14 P 144. And see supra § 53 text
and note 68.

89. Ex p. Aubin, 13 Que. Pr. 27,
19 CanCrCas 94.

90. Effect of indictment on quan-
tum of proof in proceedings to pro-
cure admission to bail see Bail §§
215, 216.

Right to bail after conviction see
Bail §§ 185-187.

91. Ex p. Smith, 89 Cal. 79, 26 P
638.

[a] Reason for rule.-To do so
would be to prejudge the case be-
fore it comes before the appellate
court on its merits on the appeal.
Ex p. Smith, 89 Cal. 79. 26 P 638.
92. Ex p. Smith, 89 Cal. 79, 26 P
638.
93.
See Bail §§ 212-220.
94. See Bail § 216.

95. See statutory provisions; and
In re Dexter, 93 Vt. 304, 107 A 134.
96. Rose v. Tyrrell, 25 Wis. 563
(where admission was denied be-
cause the prisoner was not entitled).
97.
Excessive bail generally see
Bail 222.

98. U. S.-Johnson v. Hoy, 227 U.
S. 245, 33 SCt 240, 57 L. ed. 497.

Cal.-Ex p. Duncan, 54 Cal. 75;
Peo. v. Schuster, 40 Cal. 627: Ex p.
Duncan, 53 Cal. 410; Ex p. Ruef, 7
Cal. A. 750, 96 P 24.

Ill.-Peo. v. Town, 4 Ill. 19.
La-State v. Ancoin, 47 La. Ann.
1677, 18 S 709; State v. Chandler,
45 La. Ann. 696, 12 S 884.

Miss.-Luckett v. State, 51 Miss.

799.

8

Tex.--Miller v. State, 43 Tex. 579; Ex p. Rogers, 83 Tex. Cr. 152, 201 SW 1157; Ex p. Goodwin, 58 Tex. Cr. 288, 125 SW 582; Ex p. Wilson, 20 Tex. A. 498; Ex p. Hutchings, 11 Tex. A. 28.

And see cases passim.

[a] Reason for rule.-"We are not to assume in this case the functions of the Court committing the prisoner, or substitute our own for its judgment in fixing the amount of bail." Ex p. Duncan, 53 Cal. 410,

411.

99. See cases supra note 98. Excessive bail in criminal cases see Bail $§ 222, 223.

1. Whiting v. Putnam, 17 Mass. 175; Jones v. Kelly, 17 Mass. 116 (excessive bail required in an action for tort reduced on habeas corpus); In re Cazin, 56 Vt. 297.

Excessive bail in civil actions see Bail §§ 24-26.

2. Ex p. Martin, (Cal. A.) 197 P 365.

[a] Illustration.-That petitioner is being held to answer on excessive bail constitutes no ground for issuance of writ of habeas corpus, where it does not appear that he has made timely or any application for a reduction of the amount of the bail. Ex p. Martin, (Cal. A.)197 P 365. 3. See supra § 6.

4.

360.

Moriarity's App., (Nev.) 191 P
Johnson v. Hoy, 227 U. S. 245,
33 SCt 240. 57 L. ed. 497.
See Bail § 223.

5.

6.

7. Ex p. Evans, 81 Tex. Cr. 366, 195 SW 861; Rex v. Gregg. 6 Alta. L. 234, 13 DomLR 770, 22 CanCrCas 51, 25 WestLR 183, 4 West Wkly 1345 (where a convicted person released on security pending appeal was discharged from rearrest on the strength of the original conviction, the appeal being still pending).

8. In re Fitton, 68 Vt. 297, 35 A 319. [a] Illustration.-Accused who, while under arrest on state process, instituted habeas corpus proceedings in a federal court, was discharged, with protection from arrest for one day. appealed, and gave bail pending P appeal, such appeal being dismissed

N. H.-Evans v. Foster, 1 N. H.
Okl.-Ex p. Ruble, (Cr.) 193

374.

the grand jury finds a true bill, is legally detained, so that habeas corpus will not lie.9

10

[§ 87] 5. Contempt1o-a. In General. In accordance with the general rules governing the use of habeas corpus in cases of restraint under a judgment, sentence, or order,11 if the court in committing a person for contempt acted within its jurisdiction, and a contempt is plainly charged in the commitment, its action is final and the writ of habeas corpus will not lie; 12 the justice or propriety of the commitment is not open to review.13

thereafter for failure to prosecute, is not entitled to discharge from detention under state process to which he became amenable on termination of the jurisdiction of the federal court through dismissal of his appeal, even though his bail in such court was not discharged or forfeited. In re Fitton, 68 Vt. 297, 35 A 319.

9. State v. Brusle, 34 La. Ann. 61. 10. Contempt generally see Contempt 13 C. J. p 1.

180

11. See supra §§ 46-59. 12. U. S.-In re McKenzie, U. S. 536, 21 SCt 468, 45 L. ed. 657; Tinsley v. Anderson, 171 U. S. 101, 18 SCt 805, 43 L. ed. 91; Ex p. Lennon, 166 U. S. 548, 17 SCt 658, 41 L. ed. 1110, [aff 64 Fed. 320, 12 CCA 134]; U. S. v. Pridgeon, 153 U. S. 48, 14 SCt 746, 36 L. ed. 631; In re Swan, 150 U. S. 637, 14 SCt 225, 37 L. ed. 1207; Ex p. Tyler, 149 U. S. 164, 13 SCt 785, 37 L. ed. 689; Ex p. Cuddy, 131 U. S. 280, 9 SCt 703, 33 L. ed. 154; Ex p. Terry, 128 U. S. 289, 9 SCt 77, 32 L. ed. 405: Ex p. Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651, 4 SCt 152, 28 L. ed. 274; Ex p. Rowland, 104 U. S. 604, 26 L. ed. 861; Ex p. Kearney. 7 Wheat. 38. 5 L. ed. 391; Ex p. Moran, 144 Fed. 594, 75 CCA 396; Ex p. O'Neal, 125 Fed. 967; Ex p. Haggerty, 124 Fed. 441; Ex p. Davis, 112 Fed. 139; In re Jordan, 49 Fed. 238.

Ala.-Ex p. Hardy, 68 Ala. 303. Ariz.-Ex p. Brown, 3 Ariz. 411, 77 P 489.

Cal.-Ex p. Joutsen. 154 Cal. 540. 98 P 391, 392; In re Clarke. 125 Cal. 388, 58 P 22; Ex p. Vance, 88 Cal. 281. 26 P 118; Ex p. Acock, 84 Cal. 50, 23 P 1029; Ex p. Ah Men, 77 Cal. 198. 19 P 380. 11 AmSR 263; Ex p. Sternes, 77 Cal. 156, 19 P 275, 11 AmSR 251; Ex p. Cottrell, 59 Cal. 420: Ex p. Cohn, 55 Cal. 193; Ex p. Smith. 53 Cal. 204; Ex p. Perkins, 18 Cal. 60: Ex p. Cohen. 5 Cal. 494; Ex p. Philbrook, (A.) 191 P 77; Ex p. Selowsky, 38 Cal. A. 569, 177 P 301.

Fla. Ex p. Edwards, 11 Fla. 174. Ill.-Peo. V. Zimmer, 252 Ill. 9, 96 NE 529: Ex p. Smith, 117 Ill. 63, 7 NE 683; Clark v. Peo., 1 Ill. 340, 12 AmD 177.

Ind. Gillie V. Fleming,

737.

The evi

158. N. H.-State v. 540.

dence cannot be reviewed for the purpose of determining the guilt or innocence of the person detained.1 14 Mere matters of defense on the merits are not a proper subject for inquiry,15 and matters which merely authorize a modification of the order sought to be reviewed cannot be investigated.16 As in other classes of cases, mere errors or irregularities not jurisdictional in character1? will not support the writ; the proceedings must be void as distinguished from merely erroneous. No matter how erroneous an order, judgment, or decree of a court

Towle, 42 N. H. N. Y.-Peo. v. Frost, 198 N. Y. 110, 91 NE 376, 139 AmSR 801, 24 N. Y. Cr. 388 [aff 135 App. Div. 473, 120 NYS 491]; Peo. v. Fancher, 2 Hun 226; Peo. v. Sheriff, 29 Barb. 622, 7 AbbPr 96; Matter of Smethhurst, 4 N. Y. Super. 724, 4 How Pr 369, 3 Code Rep 55; In re Percy, 2 Daly 530; Peo. v. Feenaughty, 51 Misc. 468, 101 NYS 700; Peo. v. Tamsen, 15 Misc. 364, 37 NYS 407; Peo. v. Grant, 13 NYCivProc 305; In re Jones, 6 NY Civ Proc 250; Anonymous, 18 Abb NCas 216; Davison's Case, 13 AbbPr 129; Kahn's Case. 11 AbbPr 147. 19 How Pr 475; Myers v. Janes, 3 AbbPr 301; Peo. v. Kelly, 21 HowPr 54; Peo. v. Tamsen, 1 NYLRec 137; Peo. v. Cassels, 5 Hill 164; Yates v. Lansing. 9 Johns. 395, 6 AmD 290; Peo. v. Spalding, 10 Paige 284 [aff 7 Hill 301].

Oh. In re Fusfeld, 21 Oh. Cir. Ct. N. S. 62, 36 Oh. Cir. Ct. 72, 3 Oh. A. 224.

Okl.-Ex p. Plaistridge, 173 P 646; Ex p. Fowler, 3 Okl. Cr. 196, 105 P 180.

Pa.-Com. v. Lewis, 253 Pa. 175, 98 A 31; In re Williamson, 26 Pa. 9, 67 AmD 374; Jack v. Twyford, 10 Pa. Super. 475.

Porto Rico.-Ex p. Le Hardy, 17 Porto Rico 985.

S. C.-Ex p. Keeler, 45 S. C. 537, 23 SE 865, 55 AmSR 785, 31 LRA 678; In re Stokes, 5 S. C. 71.

Tex.-Holman v. Austin, 34 Tex. 668; Jordan v. State, 14 Tex. 436; Ex p. Shepherd, 68 Tex. Cr. 443, 153 SW 628; Ex p. West, 60 Tex. Cr. 485, 132 SW 339; Ex p. Latham. 47 Tex. Cr. 208, 82 SW 1046; Ex D. Duncan. 42 Tex. Cr. 661, 62 SW 758; Ex p. Warfield, 40 Tex. Cr. 413, 50 SW 933. 76 AmSR 724.

Utah.-Ex p. Whetstone, 9 Utah 156, 36 P 633; In re Harris, 4 Utah 5, 5 P 129.

Vt. In re Cooper, 32 Vt. 253 (commitment by justice of peace).

Wash.-In re Bishop, 114 Wash. 245, 194 P 971: In re Nolan, 21 Wash. 395, 58 P 222.

Wis.-In re Rosenberg, 90 Wis. 581, 63 NW 1065, 64 NW 299; In re 133 NE Milburn. 59 Wis. 24. 17 NW 765; In re Blair, 4 Wis. 522.

Iowa.-State v. Seaton, 61 Iowa 563, 16 NW 736; Robb v. McDonald, 29 Iowa 330. 4 AmR 211; Ex p. Holman, 28 Iowa 88, 5 AmR 159; Platt v. Harrison, 6 Iowa 79, 71 AmD 389.

Kan. In re Cooper, 86 Kan. 573. 121 P 334; In re Moran, 83 Kan. 615, 112 P 94; In re Gunn, 50 Kan. 155, 32 P 470, 948, 19 LRA 519.

La.-State v. Fagin, 28 La. Ann.

887.

Md. Ex p. Maulsby, 13 Md. 625. Mich. In re Bissell, 40 Mich. 63. Miss-Ex p. Wimberly, 57 Miss. 437; Shattuck v. State, 51 Miss. 50, 24 AmR 624; Ex p. Adams, 25 Miss. 883. 59 AmD 234.

Eng. Sheriff's Case, 11 A. & E. 273, 39 ECL 164, 113 Reprint 419: Hobhouse's Case, 3 B. & Ald. 420, 5 ECL 246, 106 Reprint 716. 2 Chit. 207, 18 ECL 593, 12 ERC 483; Rex. v. Carlile, 4 C. & P. 415, 19 ECL 580; Chamber's Case, Cro. Car. 168, 79 Reprint 746: Crosby's Case. W. Bl. 754, 96 Reprint 441. 3 Wils. C. P. 188. 95 Reprint 1005: Murray's Case, 1 Wils. C. P. 299, 95 Reprint 629.

[a] Detention for failure to disclose information.-Where a judge is authorized to imprison a party for failure to disclose information, he is vested with discretion to decide when the person has made a full and fair disclosure, and such discreMo.-Ex p. Badger, 226 SW 936; tion will not be interfered with unEx p. Goodin. 67 Mo. 637: Ex p. Mc- less it is shown that the magisKee, 18 Mo. 599: In re Holman, 197 trate abused his discretion. In re Mo. A. 70. 191 SW 1109 [aff 270 Mo Carpenter, 71 Vt. 91, 41 A 1042. 696, 195 SW 7111; Ex p. Millet, £7 [b] Review after other remedy Mo. A. 76; Ex p. Mason, 16 Mo. A. 41. denied.-Under Code § 4468. which Mont.-State V. Second Judicial provides that no appeal lies Dist. Ct., 14 Mont. 396. 40 P 66. from an order to punish for conNev. Phillips v. Welch, 12 Nev. 'tempt, but that in proper cases the

18

[blocks in formation]

13. Ex p. Perkins, 18 Cal. 60; Peo. v. Fancher, 2 Hun (N. Y.) 226; Kearney's Case, 13 AbbPr (N. Y.) 459, 22 How Pr 309. And cases supra note 12.

14. U. S.-Ex p. Terry, 128 U. S. 289, 9 SCt 77, 32 L. ed. 405.

Cal.-Ex p. Kandarian, 202 P 647. Hawaii.-Matter of Mills, 19 Hawaii 88, AnnCas1912A 577.

Iowa.-Ex p. Grace, 12 Iowa 208, 79 AmD 529.

Porto Rico. Ex p. Pesquera, 17 Porto Rico 706.

Tex. Ex p. Testard, 101 Tex. 250, 106 SW 319; Ex p. Reid, 99 Tex. 405, 89 SW 956.

45.

But see cases infra text and note

[a] Contra.-A court issuing a writ of habeas corpus is not limited to an inquiry as to the convicting court's jurisdiction, but if the truth of the findings upon which judgment is based is denied in petitioner's reply to the return, or in some other appropriate manner, inquiry may be made in regard thereto. Ex p. Devoy, (Mo. A.) 236 SW 1070.

[b] Personal insult to magistrate.-"In determining whether the language used was or was not a contempt, regard must be had, not merely to the very words used, but to the surrounding circumstances; the connection in which they were used, the tone, the look, the manner, the emphasis. These give meaning to the words, and might satisfy every bystander that they were used in an ironical and insulting sense. Of such contempts the court to whom they are offered, or in whose presence they arise, must be the exclusive judge, as the punishment for them should be immediate and on the spot." In re Cooper, 32 Vt. 253, 256.

15. Castner V. Pocahontas Colleries Co., 117 Fed. 184; In re Clarke, 125 Cal. 388, 58 P 22; Harris v. McDade, 1 Tex. A. Civ. Cas. § 796.

[a] Ignorance of injunction.-On petition for habeas corpus by one arrested and committed for disobeying an injunction, the question whether petitioner knew of the injunction cannot be inquired into, this being a matter of defense on the merits. Castner v. Pocahontas Colleries Co., 117 Fed. 184.

16. Ex p. Wilson, 73 Cal. 97, 14 P 393 (where release was sought from commitment for contempt for failure to pay money as directed by a court order on the ground of discharge in insolvency proceedings); Edmonson v. Ramsey, 122 Miss. 450, 84 S 455, 10 ALR 380 (ability to give bond for payment of alimony).

17. See supra §§ 19. 20, 46. 18. U. S. In re Swan. 150 U. S. 637. 14 SCt 225, 37 L. ed. 1207: Ex p. Blair. 253 Fed. 800 [aff 250 U. S. 273. 39 SCt 468. 63 L. ed. 979]: U. S. v. Henkel, 185 Fed. 553; Ex p. Moran, 144 Fed. 594. 75 CCA 396; Ex p. O'Neal, 125 Fed. 967.

Ala.-Ex p. Pearce, 111 Ala. 99, 20

[blocks in formation]

Cal. In re Wilson, 75 Cal. 580, 17 P 698; Ex p. McCullough, 35 Cal. 97; Ex p. Perkins, 18 Cal. 60.

Fía.-Ex p. Senior, 37 Fla. 1, 19 S 652. 32 LRA 133.

Hawaii. In re Anin, 17 Hawaii

338.

NE

Ind. Gillie v. Fleming, 133 737; Perry v. Pernet, 165 Ind. 67, 74 NE 609, 6 AnnCas 533. Iowa. Ex p. Grace, 12 Iowa 208, 79 AmD 529.

Kan. P 171, 7 24 Kan.

In re Morris, 39 Kan. 28, 18 AmSR 512; In re Millington, 214. Minn. State v. Langum, 112 Minn. 121, 127 NW 465.

Mo.-Ex p. Gfeller, 178 Mo. 248, SW 552; In re Copenhaver, 118 377, 24 SW 161, 40 AmSR 382; Dickmann, 175 Mo. A. 543, 1012; Ex p. Millett, 37 Mo.

77 Mo. State v. 157 SW A. 76.

Y.

erron

Nebr.-In re Button, 83 Nebr. 636, 120 NW 203, 23 LRANS 1173. N. Y.-Peo. 8 (where defendant was committed v. Jacobs, 66 N. until he paid a fine, but an eous item was claimed to have been included in the fine); Peo. v. Dunn, 38 App. Div. 112, 56 NYS 627; In re Percy, 2 Daly 530; Peo. v. Tamsen, 15 Misc. 364, 37 NYS 407. N. D.-State 350, 65 NW 688. v. Barnes, 5 N. D.

Oh.

-White v. Gates, 42 Oh. St. 109; In re Rosenthal, 25 Oh. Ct. N. S. 383; In re Fusfeld, 21 Oh. Cir. Cir. Ct. N. S. 62, 36 Oh. Cir. Ct. 72, 3 Oh. A. 224. Okl.-Ex p. Fowler, 3 Okl. Cr. 196, 105 P 180. Porto

Rico.-Ex p. Pesquera, 17 Porto Rico 706.

S. C.-Ex p. Keeler, 45 S. C. 537, 23 SE 865. 55 AmSR 785, 31 LRA 678; In re Stokes, 5 S. C. 71.

Tex-Ex p. Morgan, 57 Tex. Cr. 551, 124 SW 99, 136 AmSR 996; Ex p. Ellis, 37 Tex. Cr. 539, 40 SW 275, 66 AmSR 831.

re

to

[29 C. J.] 97

20

and render the order of commitment wholly void, where a contempt is predicated on the disobediare ground for discharge on habeas corpus,

of commitment cannot be inquired
4 HowPr 369.
[d] The sufficiency of the cause
into on habeas corpus.
45.
ney, 7 Wheat. (U. S.) 38, 5 L. ed.
Ex p. Kear-
391.
But see infra text and note

737.

Perkins, 18 Cal. 60.
19. Cal.-Ex p.
417; Ex p. Cohn, 55 Cal. 193; Ex p.
Cottrell. 59 Cal.
Ind. Gillie v. Fleming, 133
330, 4 AmR 211; Ex p. Holman, 28
NE
Iowa 88, 4 AmR 159; Ex p. Grace,
Iowa.-Robb v. McDonald, 29 Iowa
12 Iowa 208, 79 AmD 529.
Kan. In re Morris, 39 Kan. 28, 18
P 171. AmSR 512.
Mich. In re Bissell, 40 Mich. 63.
Miss.-Watson V. Williams, 36
377, 24 SW 161, 40 AmSR 382; Ex p.
Mo.-In re Copenhaver, 118
Mo.
Goodin, 67 Mo. 637.
31 Mont.

Miss. 331.

Downey,

Mont.-In re
187. 12 Nev. 158.
441, 78 P 772.
Nev. Phillips v. Welch, 11 Nev.

540.

N. H.-State v. Towle, 42 N. H. N. Y.-Peo. v. Jacobs, 66 N. 8 [aff 5 Hun 428 Y. 370)]; Anonymous, 18 AbbNCas 216; (rev 49 HowPr How Pr Kearney's Case, 13 AbbPr 459, .22 309: Davison's AbbPr 129; Kahn's Case, 11 AbbPr Case, 13 147, 19 How Pr 475; Wicker v. Dresser, 4 AbbPr 93, 13 HowPr 331; Peo. v. Nevins. 1 Hill 154.

S. C.-Gilliam v. McJunkin, 2 S. C. 442.

Vt. In re Cooper, 32 Vt. 253. 620. 192 P 947. Wash.-In re Parent, 112 Wash.

Wis. In re Perry. 30 Wis. 268; In re Blair, 4 Wis. 522. 20. p. Terry, 128 U. S. 289, 9 SCt 77, 32 U. S.-In re Swan, 150 U. S. 637. 14 SCt 225, 37 L. ed. 1207; Ex L. ed. 405; In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 443. 8 SCt 164. 31 L. ed. 216; Ex p. L. ed. 1117; Ex p. Rowland, 104 U. Fisk, 113 U. S. 713, 5 SCt 724, 28 Henkel, 185 Fed. 553; Cuyler v. AtS. 604, 26 L. ed. 861; Ex p. Steiner, lantic, etc., R. Co., 131 Fed. 95; In re 202 Fed. 419, 124 CCA 89; U. S. v. Turner, 119 Fed. 231: Pocahontas Collieries Co., 117 Fed Castner 184; In re Reese, 107 Fed. 942, 47 CCA 87; Ex p. Buskirk, 72 Fed. 14, 18 CCA 410; Ex p. Perkins, 29 Fed. 900. nied as unnecessary under circumSee Ex p. Simon, 208 U. S. 144, 28 SCt 238, 52 L. ed. 429 (writ destances).

V.

50 S 218; Ex p. Hardy, 68 Ala. 303. Ala.-Exp. Dickens. 162 Ala. 272. P 546, 77 AmSR 176. 46 LRA 835: Cal-Ex p. Hoar, 146 Cal. 132. 79 P 853; Ex p. Clarke, 126 Cal. 235, 58 Ex p. Zeehandelaar, 71 Cal. 238, 12 p. Rowe, 7 Cal. 181; Ex p. Cohen, 5 P 259; Exp. Hollis, 59 Cal. 405; Ex

Wash.-In re Parent, 112 Wash. 620, 192 P 947. Wis.-In 581, 63 NW 1065, 64 NW 299; Wright Rosenberg. 90 Wis. y. Wright, 74 Wis. 439, 43 NW 145; In re Pierce, 44 Perry, 30 Wis. 268. Wis. 411; In re Wyo.-Ex p. 396, 26 P 914. Bergman, 3 Wyo. [a] Errors and irregularities held insuficient Failure of return to show copy of support writ: (1) restraining order served on defendant to have been certified. Fleming, (Ind.) 133 Gillie v. Order for temporary injunction signed NE 737. (2) by judge before issuance of summons. Gillie v. Fleming, supra. of attachment for disobedience, in(3) Order correctly describing the first day of the next term, when defendant was required to appear. ing, supra. Gillie v. Flemment signed by court without being (4) Order of attach- Cal. 494. copied into order book. Fleming, supra. Gillie [b] Fictitious used. Where a judgment was obname improperly tained against a defendant, designated by a fictitious name and an order to punish him on his failure to appear in supplefor contempt mentary proceedings was made. describing him by the fictitious name, the regularity of the order was not permitted to be questioned on ground that before it the plaintiff had discovered defendant's was made, real name, the remedy being by motion to set it aside. 38 App. Div. 112, 56 NYS 627. Peo. v. Dunn, [c] Sufficiency affidavits supplementary proceedings. Where in a defendant is committed for tempt in supplementary proceedings, the sufficiency of the affidavits cannot be reviewed on habeas corpus. In re Smethurst, 4 N. Y. Super. 724,

[blocks in formation]

Colo.-Wyatt v. Peo., 17 Colo. 252. 28 P 961; In re Brown. 4 Colo. 438. Simmons v. Palmer. 33 App. 592. 446; Matter of Marsh. 11 D. C. 32; D. C.-Lamon v. McKee, 18 D. C.

Fla.-Ex p. Turner, 73 Fla. 360, 74 33 S 991; Ex p. Senior, 37 Fla. 1, 19 etc.. R. Co. v. Williams, 45 Fla. 295. S 314. LRA1917D 355; Florida Cent.. S 652, 32 LRA 133; Ex p. Edwards, 11 Fla. 174.

Hawaii.-Ex p. Pahia, 13 Hawaii

575.

V.

Ill.-Peo. v. Pirfenbrink. 96 Ill. 68. Ind.-Perry v. Pernet. 165 Ind. 67, 74 NE 609. 6 AnnCas 533. Iowa.-State Seaton, 563, 16 NW 736: Brown v. Davidson, 12 Iowa 208, 79 AmD 529. 61 Iowa 59 Iowa 461. 13 NW 442: Ex p. Grace,

Kan.-In re Jewett, 69 Kan. 830, 77 P 567; In re Smith, 52 Kan. 13, 33 P 957; In re Beardsley, 37 Kan. 5 P 39, 49 AmR 505; In re Mitchell, 666, 16 P 153; In re Dill, 32 Kan. 668,

1 Kan. 643.

as

NS 44.
Ky. Ex p. Alexander, 2 AmLReg

appendix.
Md. Ex p. Maulsby, 13 Md. 625

Mass.-In re Clarke, 12 Cush. 320;
Com. v. Sumner, 5 Pick. 360.

In re Morton, 10 Mich. 208.
Mich. In re Hall, 10 Mich. 210;

Miss. Ex p. Hickey, 12 Miss. 751.
256, 30 SW 768, 1036, 49 AmSR 557,
Clark, 208 Mo. 121, 106 SW 990, 15
Mo.-Ex p. Creasy, 243 Mo. 679,
148 SW 914, 41 LRANS 478; In re
LRANS 389; Ex p. Arnold, 128 Mo.
477, 30 SW 158; Ex p. Crenshaw, 80
33 LRA 386; Ex p. O'Brien, 127 Mo.
Mo. 447; Ex p. Fish, (A.) 184 SW
479; In re Heffron, 179 Mo. A.
162 SW 652; Matter of Clark, 126 Mo.
639,
A. 391, 103 SW 1105; Matter of Green,
86 Mo. A. 216.

Nebr.-In re Havlik, 45 Nebr. 747, 64 NW 234.

N. H.-State v. Towle, 42 N. H.
540.

N. Y.-In re Depue, 185 N. Y. 60,
NYS 1017]; Peo. v. Court of Oyer,
77 NE 798 [rev 108 App. Div. 58, 95
etc.. 101 N. Y. 245,
AmR 691; Peo. v. Liscomb, 60 N. Y.
4 NE 259, 54
559, 19 AmR 211; Peo. v. Kelly, 24
N. Y. 74, 24 HowPr 369 [aff 12 Abb
Pr 150,
852; Peo. v. Hannah, 92 Hun 476,
21 How Pr
Platzek, 133 App. Div. 25, 117 NYS
54]; Peo. V.
37 NYS 702; Swenarton v. Shupe, 40
Hun 41 [aff 9 NYCivProc 402]; Peo.
grounds 88 N. Y. 626]; Peo. v. Riley,
v. Gilmore, 26 Hun 1 [rev on other
25 Hun 587; In re Watson, 3 Lans.
naughty, 51 Misc. 468, 101 NYS 700;
408 [aff 5 Lans. 466]; Peo. v. Fee-
Case, 15 AbbPrNS 38 [rev on other
Peo. v. Webb, 5 NYS 855; Shanks'
467]; Develin's Case, 5 AbbPr 281;
grounds 2 Hun 226, 4 Thomps. & C.
Myers v. Janes, 3 AbbPr 301; Peo.
v. Cassels, 5 Hill 164.

319, 54 NE 262, 71 AmSR 720; White
Oh.-Ex p. Jennings, 60 Oh. St.
Ct. 611; In re Sims, 7 Oh. Dec. (Re-
print) 633, 4 CincLBul 457.
v. Gates, 42 Oh. St. 109; In re Morris,
8 Oh. Cir. Ct. N. S. 212, 28 Oh. Cir.

N. C.-State v. Little, 175 N. C.
743, 94 SE 680.

138 P 815, AnnCas1916A 719; Ex p.
Okl.-Blanchard v. Bryan, 200 P
444; Ex p. Sullivan, 10 Okl. Cr. 465,
Gudenoge, 2 Okl. Cr. 110, 100 P 39.
Porto Rico 706.
16 A 525, 2 LRA 223.
Pa.-Com. v. Perkins, 124 Pa. 36,
Porto
442; James v. Smith, 2 S. C. 183.
Rico. Ex p. Pesquera, 17
R. I. In re Hammel, 9 R. I. 248.
S. C.-Gilliam v. McJunkin, 2 S. C.
326, 98 AmD 404.
Tenn.-State v. Galloway, 5 Coldw.

106 SW 319; Ex p. Stephens, 100 Tex.
Tex.-Ex p. Testard, 101 Tex. 250,
107, 94 SW 327; Holman v. Austin,
34 Tex. 668; Ex p. Kemper, 86 Tex.
Cr. 251, 216 SW 172; Ex p. Coffee, 72
Tex. Cr. 209, 161
Ex p. Kearby, 35 Tex. Cr. 531, 34
Duncan, 42 Tex. Cr. 661, 62 SW 758;
Stone,
SW 975; Ex p.
(Cr.) 72 SW 1000; Ex p.
566, 17 SW 1111; Ex p. Kilgore, 3
SW 635; Ex p. Degener, 30 Tex. A.
Tex. A. 247.

Langdon, 25 Vt. 680.
Vt. In re Leach, 51 Vt. 630; Ex p.
Wash.-In
526. 65 P 759.
re Coulter, 25
Wash.
W. Va.-Ex p. Mylius, 61 W. Va.
AnnCas 812.
405, 56 SE 602, 10 LRANS 1098, 11
Wis.-In re Rosenberg,
581, 63 NW 1065, 64 NW 299; In re
90
Wis.
Milburn, 59
4 Wis. 522.
In re Pierce, 44 Wis. 411; In re Blair,
Wis. 24, 17 NW 965;

Wyo. 392, 58 P 411, 49 LRA 831; Ex
Wyo. Miskimmins V. Shaver, 8
remedy in cases of illegal imprison-
p. Bergman, 3 Wyo. 396, 26 P 914.
"Writ of habeas corpus is proper
ment for contempt. If ... it ap-

23

28

27

26

not reviewable on habeas corpus. The form and contents of the commitment may be looked to, in order to see that it specially and plainly charges the contempt, and is otherwise sufficient to authorize the detention of the prisoner.2 Where the commitment itself is illegal, relief may be had by habeas corpus, as where essential formalities required to be complied with in the commitment proceedings have not been observed,29 such as notice and an opportunity to be heard, 30 or where the commitment was made after the jurisdiction of the court to act had terminated or been stayed, or where the term of commitment is unlawful,32 as where it is indefinite. 33 But a commitment until performance of a ting in a state where such an order | Overend v. San Francisco Super. Ct., is authorized under the local statute, 131 Cal. 280, 63 P 372, and cases will not warrant imprisonment for cited)." Ex p. Hoar, 146 Cal. 132, contempt for disobedience, and one 133, 79 P 853. so imprisoned may be discharged on habeas corpus. Ex p. Fisk, 113 U. S. 713, 5 SCt 724, 28 L. ed. 1117. [b] Requiring officers to perform acts beyond scope of official duty and commitment for disobedience is ground_for relief on habeas corpus. Ex p. Rowland, 104 U. S. 604, 26 L. ed. 861.

ence of an order or process of a court which did not
have jurisdiction of the proceeding in which the
order was made or the process issued;21 or where
the court exceeded its powers in making the order
which the party disobeyed;22 or where the act
charged was not one which the court had power to
punish as a contempt, that is, where it did not, as
a matter of law, constitute a contempt.2 But while
the court may inquire into the existence of jurisdic-
tion, 24
a jurisdictional finding based on some evi-
dence will not be reviewed on habeas corpus,'
25 and
where the court had general jurisdiction to render
such a judgment for contempt, error in assuming
jurisdiction of the particular case has been held
pears... that the judgment is upon
a cause of contempt, for which the
Court has no statutory power to
punish, or if it so appears that the
punishment inflicted is not within
the power prescribed by statute for
such cause [such a].. judg-
ment would be void for want of jur-
isdiction." State V. Galloway, 5
Coldw. (Tenn.) 326, 336, 98 AmD 404.
[a] Defects held sufficient to sup-
port writ: (1) Lack of adjudication
convicting prisoner of
contempt.
Ex p. Lawler, 28 Ind. 241; Ex p.
O'Brien, 127 Mo. 477, 30 SW 158.
(2) Excessive penalties illegally im-
posed upon a witness who refuses to
answer a question repeated several
times. Canal Zone V. Murray, 2
Canal Zone 161. (3) Commitment
of one not a. party to the cause in
which the order violated and not
subject to the jurisdiction of the
court. In re Reese, 107 Fed. 942, 47
CCA 87. (4) Commitment by a
board having no authority to commit
for contempt. In re Heffron, 9 Oh.
Dec. (Reprint) 674, 16 CineLBul 285.
(5) Tyrannical exercise of power.
Tyler v. Connolly, 65 Cal. 28, 2 P 414.
(6) Unwarranted appointment of
special judge on disqualification of
regular judge. Ex p. Fish, (Mo. A.)
184 SW 479. (7) Absence of the
notice contemplated by law to an
attorney_proceeded against for a con-
tempt. In re Clark, 208 Mo. 121, 106
SW 990, 15 LRANS 389. (8) De-
nial of jury trial where right exists
by constitution. Blanchard v. Bryan,
(Okl.) 200 P 444.

21. U. S.-In re Burrus, 136 U. S. 586, 10 SCt 850, 34 L. ed. 1500; In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 433, 8 SCt 164, 31 L. ed. 216; Ex p. Robinson, 144 Fed. 835, 75 CCA 663; Ex p. Haggerty,

124 Fed. 441.

Miss. Ex p. Wimberly, 57 Miss. 437.

Mo.-In re Heffron, 179 Mo. A. 639, 162 SW 652.

Okl.-Ex p. Deickman, 33 Okl. 749, 127 P 1077.

S. C. Gilliam v. McJunkin, 2 S. C. 442; James v. Smith, 2 S. C. 183. Tex.-Ex p. Kilgore, 3 Tex. A. 247. 22. U. S.-Ex p. Fisk, 113 U. S. 713, 5 SCt 724, 28 L. ed. 1117; In re Reese, 98 Fed. 984.

Cal. In re Spencer, 82 Cal. 110, 23 P 37.

D. C.-Elliott v. U. S., 23 App. 456. Kan.-Ex p. Luttgerding, 83 Kan. 205, 110 P 95.

Ky. Bickly v. Com., 2 J. J. Marsh. 572.

La. State v. Tebault, 147 La. 889, 86 S 320.

Mo.-Ex p. Arnold, 128 Mo. 256, 30 SW 768. 1036. 49 AmSR 557, 33 LRA 386; Ex p. Devoy, (A.) 236 SW 1070; In re Heffron, 179 Mo. A. 639, 162 SW 652.

N. M.-In re Fullen, 17 N. M. 394, 128 P 64.

N. Y.-Peo. v. Riley, 25 Hun 587. Vt. In re Brainerd, 56 Vt. 495. Wis. In re Remington, 7 Wis. 643. [a] Examination before trial.An order for the examination of a witness before trial, made by a federal court, which has no authority to make such an order, although sit

23. U. S.-Ex p. Hudgings, 249 U.
S. 378, 39 SCt 337, 63 L. ed. 656 (per-
jury).

D. C.-Elliott v. U. S., 23 App. 456.
Fla.-Ex p. Senior, 37 Fla. 1, 19
S 652, 32 LRA 133.

Iowa.-State V.

Seaton, 61 Iowa
5 P

563, 16 NW 736.
Kan.-In re Dill, 32 Kan. 668,
39, 49 AmR 505.

Miss.-Ex p. Hickey, 12 Miss. 751.
Mo.-Ex p. Creasy, 243 Mo. 679,
148 SW 914, 41 LRANS 478.

N. Y.-Peo. v. Kelly, 24 N. Y. 74;
Peo. v. Conner, 15 AbbPrNS 430.
Oh.-White v. Gates, 42 Oh. St.
109.

Pa.-Com. v. Gibbons, 9 Pa. Super.
527 [aff 200 Pa. 430, 50 A 248, 86
AmSR 719].

Tenn.-State v. Galloway, 5 Coldw. 326, 98 AmD 404.

Eng. Sheriff's Case, 11 A. & E. 273, 39 ECL 164, 113 Reprint 419; Stockdale v. Hansard, 9 A. & E. 1, 36 ECL 27, 112 Reprint 1112; Burdett v. Abbot, 14 East 1, 104 Reprint 501; Bushell's Case, Vaugh. 135, 124 Reprint 1006.

[a]

Nunc pro tunc order.-Commitment for an act done before making of an order nunc pro tunc prohibiting such act is ground for habeas corpus. Ex p. Buskirk, 72 Fed. 14, 18 CCA 410.

[b] Judgment satisfied. Where
the judgment, for disobedience to
which a judgment debtor is commit-
ted as for a contempt, is entered sat-
isfied, habeas corpus will lie for the
release of accused. Ex p. Tittel,
contempt see

67 Cal. 261, 7 P 678.
What constitutes
Contempt §§ 8-51.
24. Ex p. Stone, (Tex. Cr.) 72 SW
1000. And cases supra note 20.
25. Peo. v. Orser, 12 HowPr (N.
Y.) 550; Ex p. Stone, (Tex. Cr.) 72
SW 1000.

26. In re Parent, 112 Wash. 620.
192 P 947 [foll In re Newcomb, 56
Wash. 395, 105 P 1042]. See also
supra § 20.

27. Ex p. Hoar, 146 Cal. 132, 79 P 853; In re Shull, 221 Mo. 623, 121 SW 10, 133 AmSR 496; Ex p. McKee, 18 Mo. 599; In re Heffron, 179 Mo. A. 639, 162 SW 652; Peo. v. Kelly, 24 N. Y. 74, 24 HowPr 369 [aff 12 AbbPr 150, 21 HowPr 54]; Peo. v. Sheriff, 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 622, 7 Abb Pr 96; Matter of Percy, 2 Daly (N. Y.) 530; Matter of Baker, 11 HowPr (N. Y.) 418.

"In cases of contempt every court exercises a special and limited jurisdiction, and its authority to impose a fine or term of imprisonment must be shown by the record of conviction. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1211;

31

[a] The fact that the word "contempt" is not used in the order is not such irregularity as to render the order and commitment void. Welborn y. Faulconer, 237 Mo. 297, 141 SW 31.

Requisites and validity of order see Contempt §§ 128-131. 28. See infra notes 29-33. 29. Cal.-Ex p. Selowsky, 38 Cal. A. 569, 177 P 301. Mass.-Stone v. Carter, 13 Gray

575.

Mo.-In re Shull, 221 Mo. 623, 121 SW 10, 133 AmSR 496.

Nev.-Ex p. Tani, 29 Nev. 385, 91 P 137, 13 LRANS 518.

Oh. In re Morris, 8 Oh. Cir. Ct. N. S. 212, 28 Oh. Cir. Ct. 611.

Okl.-Ex p. Waugh, 40 Okl. 188, 137 P 105.

Pa.-Com. v. County Prison, 251 Pa. 101, 96 A 134 (statement of nature of contempt omitted).

Proceedings to punish for contempt see Contempt §§ 80-131.

30. Ex p. Rush, 60 Cal. 5; In re Clark, 208 Mo. 121, 106 SW 990, 15 LRANS 389.

31. Ex p. Batchelder, 96 Cal. 233, 31 P 45 (committment for nonpayment of alimony after discharge on taking the oath of insolvency); In re Vinton, 65 Or. 422, 132 P 1165 (court exceeded its jurisdiction by attempting to enforce obedience to order after proceedings stayed by appeal); Ex p. Ellis, 37 Tex. Cr. 539, 40 SW 275, 66 AmSR 831 (order made in vacation).

[a] Where a contempt has been purged, the court is without jurisdiction to take any further action in, or make any further order on, the contempt proceeding, and a subsequent order committing the party to prison is without authority of law and utterly void. In re Brown, 4 Colo. 438.

32. Excessive judgments generally see supra § 50.

Extent of punishment for contempt generally see Contempt § 140. 33. D. C.-In re Marsh, 11 D. C. 32. Ill-Peo. v. Pirfenbrink, 96 Ill. 68. Md.-Ex p. Maulsby, 13 Md. 625 appendix.

N. Y.-Shanks' Case, 15 AbbPrNS 38 [rev on other grounds 2 Hun 226, 4 Thomps. & C. 467]; Yates v. Peo., 6 Johns. 337 [rev 4 Johns. 317]. But see Yates v. Lansing, 9 Johns. 395, 6 AmD 290 (holding commitment for indefinite time or until further order of the court good).

R. I. In re Hammel, 9 R. I. 248. Vt. In re Leach, 51 Vt. 630. Eng. Matter of Crawford, 13 Q. B. 613, 66 ECL 613, 116 Reprint 1397; Rex v. James, 5 B. & Ald. 894, 7 ECL 486, 106 Reprint 1418, 15 ERC 137; Rex v. Hall, 3 Burr. 1636, 97 Reprint 1022; Hobhouse's Case, 3 B. & Ald. 420, 5 ECL 246. 106 Reprint 716. 2 Chit. 207. 18 ECL 593, 12 ERC 483; Reg. v. Paty, 2 Ld. Raym. 1105, 92 Reprint 232, 2 Salk. 503, 91 Reprint 431; Bracy's Case. 1 Ld. Raym. 100, 91 Reprint 962; Goff's Case, 3 M. & S.

« AnteriorContinuar »