Case ID: vt_74/html/0040-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Taft, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In Re William Jennison.
    October Term, 1901.
    Present: Taft, C. J., Rowell, Tyler, Munson, Start, Watson and. Stafford, JJ.
    Opinion filed November 30, 1901.
    
      Arrest on mesne- process — Duty of officer — Command of writ.
    
    It is the duty of an officer committing a person to jail on mesne process, to have him in court at the time and place named in the writ; failing this, the imprisonment becomes unlawful.
    Habeas corpus. Judgment pro forma on an agreed statement of facts, at the March Term, 1901, Washington County, Watson, J., presiding, 'that relator was lawfully restrained, and remanding him to his former custody. The relator excepted.
    /. P. Damson for the relator.
    A11 officer gets his authority from the process which he is serving, and he must follow the directions therein. It was the duty of the officer in this case to keep the relator safely, and to have at the place of trial at the time named.
    
      Bdward H. Deavitt for the respondent.
    ■ It was no part of the jailer’s duty to have his prisoner at the place of trial. It was his duty to keep the prisoner until he was discharged; and he would be liable for the prisoner’s escape if it had occurred on the day of trial. The relator is not entitled to be discharged until the creditor omits for fifteen days after final judgment to malee commitment on execution. V. S. 1747.
   Taft, C. J.

The relator was arrested by one Templeton, a deputy sheriff, upon a writ issued as a capias by á justice of the peace, and committed to jail in Washington County, having neglected to procure bail. The sheriff who served the writ did not produce the relator upon the return day o-f the writ; nor at the time and place to which the case was continued; but the relator remained in jail from the time of his commitment, .and was confined therein under such commitment at the time the petition was brought. The precept upon which the relator was arrested and confined in jail commanded the officer, for want of goods, etc., to take the body of the defendant, if found, and him safely keep, so that he have him to appear before the authority signing the writ, etc. It was the duty of the officer serving the precept to follow the command therein made to take the defendant’s body, etc., and to have him before the authority signing the writ at the time and place therein named. Taking him, confining him in jail, and not producing him at the time and place stated in the writ, was not a compliance with the order contained in it. The relator should have been produced at the justice trial, and under the agreed statement of facts, he must be discharged, the parties agreeing that if the relator should have been produced at the trial, such shall be the disposition of this case. That is the only question before us, and the only one passed upon.

The relator is discharged.