The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1849-06-23


court commences its opinion by declaring that this
case presents two questions for its consideration
list, whether any, and what criminal appellate
jurisdiction is g iyen and ID, whether under the
constitution or laws the Supreme Conr could exer-
else general experimenting jurisdiction over in
ieriOr courts.
Dodge's came before the Supreme Court ir
1915 Martin Rep, 500. He had caused him.
self 10 be brought before The District Court by q
writ of habeds corpus. by the return of the iailor
il appeared that he committed on an execution.
from that Court, and admitted TO the bounds Of The
prison, having given bond according to law. Thr
sheriff made oath that The plaintiffs in execution
had not advanced the requisite under the
statute for the debtors sustenance, Whereupon hp
was discharged, and the plaintiffs in execution ap-
pealed. 1t was contended that appeal lay from
a discharge on a writ of hGbeds corpus that tie
proc ceilings of the most summary kind, and
could not be suspended nor delayed by an appeal
But the Court entertained the repeal, and reversed
the decree of discharge.
in Martin Us. Ashcraft, 8 New Series, 3l3 The
plaintiff had been arrested under sa, and wa.
dis charged on habeas corpus by order of the
Judge at chambers, under the provisions of the
Code of Practice. The creditor appealed Tn,
question was distinctly put whether an appeal
would lie to the Supreme Court, and objection was
made by the appellee upon Two grounds: 1st, thai
il taken from a decision on a writ of h0beQ,
corpus; and, ID, that the decree of the Judge was
not rendered in court but at chambers Both oh
jectOns were pronounced insufficient. This court
said Justice Porter, has decided it had not appellate
jurisdiction from the refusal TO grant writ of ha-
beas corpus, and in q subsequent recognizes
the right of appeal from the discharge under such
suit. Laverty's case-Dodge's case. These de-
csions, he continues, are not in the least contra
dlctOry. The first was where the writ had been
resorted to in matter growing out of the admins
tralion of penal law. The second, where it was
used to obtain a discharge from Imprisonment OH
a mad in civil acfinn bo ol
grant the appeal in the case, and its accordance
in the other, did not proceed from the writ, but
from the cases in which it was resorted to. In a
criminal prosecution the Court had not urisdic-
tion because this tribunal cannot take cognizance
of such matters but if The suit was civil one il
had, because It's jurisdiction in cases of this kind
does not at all depend on the nature and form of
the writs, remedies which the parties may eXer-
cise but the fact that the decision is final or
works an irreparable injury, and the amount in
dispute is above $500. The circumstance of the
decision being given before the Judge at chambers,
affect the right of appeal. The case commenced
by petition to the judge the proceedings We're had
under the provisions of the Code of Practice, which
contemplate a summary trial, and from the decision
either party had right 10 appeal.
Alter considering the merits, the judgement oil
the District Court reversed, and it was ordered
that the Cdpas, which was stayed by the decision
of the District Judge, should be proceeded on &C
cordiDg to law, the appellee paying the costs of the
appeal. This opinion seems ever afterwards to
fnrmer Snn.sms Cnnrt ~ WIG
1t was clearly affirmed in ChardOn Us. GUM
blotte, La. Rep. AL, Judge Ma Tin delivering the
opinion of the court. Gumblotte had been held to
bail at the suit of his creditor, Chardon. A rule
was taken to set aside the arrest II sustained
md the arrest set aside The nlaintifT took sus
pensive appeal from that decree. The defendant
inns remaining in custoJv and the sheriff refusing
to discharge him. he applied for a writ of haBeas
c0rDus was brought before the Judge and The
sheriff showing no cause for his detention I'VE the
order of arrest which had been set aside. tn.
prisoner was discharged From this order of dis
charge the plaintiff prayed an appeal. which was
refused the Judge being of opinion that an appeal
did not lie from an order Of discharge on habeas
corpus The Supreme Court thought otherwise,
and granted a manddmus, As the constitution had
pro vded for appeals in all civil cases in which the
ma tier in dispute exceeded in value the sum of
$500 thew said it was clear that party has a
right TO appeal from any decision in such case
which works an irreparable injury. That if an ap-
peal would lie from decree in open ceurt, where
the Judge has the benefit of counsel a tortiori, it
would lie when order is granted al chambers
re pdrte Such order might have fatal a con-
sequence as any other. The defendant who was
in custody upon claim for $50 900 had been rs-
leased &c pdrte and if there Was no remedy might
Instantly move out of the State and place himself
beyond the reach of his creditors The court again
the distinction between civil and crim
nal eases.
The same doctrine was re-a!Iirmed in HYDE Us
Jenkins 6 La. Rep. 1877; and was again expressly
III The Stale U.s. the Judge OF the Com
nercIdl court, 10 La keP. III. Sui later, IN "a
pdrte Latonta, The rule was acted upon apparently
as mailer Oh course, Tie objection not being even
raised
Being therefore oil opinion that The grant OF appel
ate jurisdiction IN citi cases, uiloer The o31 article