Case ID: cow_3/html/0366-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      \n      í/ana.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People, ex rel. Glander & Person, against The Justices of the Marine Court of the city of New-York.
    The act for the relief of debtors with respect to the imprisonment of their persons (1 R. L. 348, s. 4) extends to debtors in execution on judgments founded on wrongs as well as on contracts, e. g, on an assault and battery. ..
    On shewing cause why a mandamus should not issue, it appeared that the relators were sued in the Marine Court for an assault and battery, to which they severally pleaded not guilty ; judgment passed against them, and they were committed to gaol on a capias ad satisfaciendum for $ 160 damages and costs ; that, on the 23d September, 1824, they respectively petitioned the Marine Court for a discharge, un-, der the “ act for the relief of debtors with respect to the imprisonment of their persons,” passed April 9th, 1813; (1 R. L. 348) which was opposed, because the judgment was founded on a wrong—not on contract. Upon this ground, # the prisoners were remanded; and the hearing of the application adjourned.
    
      J. E. Lovett, for the defendants,
    said the word “ debt,'1' used in the statute, applies to a judgment founded upon contract. The statute was passed for the benefit of the unfortunate debtor, not for the relief of the guilty. The cases of Jackson v. Smith, (5 John. Rep. 115,) The King v. Wakefield, (13 East, 189,) and Ex parte Benj. Lawrence, (1 B. & P. 477) do not apply to the present question.
    
      J. JWKown, for the relators.
    The words of the act are too broad to be misunderstood. To warrant the interference of the Court, it is only necessary that the applicant should be charged in execution for a sum of money. Strong v. White, (9 John. 161) has no application; for the act of 1811 was expressly limited to the case of judgments upon contract. In Jackson v. Smith, (5 John. Rep. 117) the Court leave it strongly to be implied, that if the defendant had been in actual custody upon a conviction for the conlemptg the Common Pleas would have been right in discharging.
   í/ana.

ihe question now is the same as it was upon the ... „ , , motion for a role to shew cause 5 and we see no reason to change the opinion we then expressed.

Rule absolute.