New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1854-02-01

I
deemed an execution within the meaning Of tina, section
In oDcden" TO law. securing the benefit Of this gre.
prerogave VIM TO the humblts ctizen-he only prsc,i
cal guarantee u civil berty-making imperative on ma
rnder forfeiture Of ~ 600 in Of refusal allowed the
writ returnabe forthwith The Sheriff appeared before
with his prisoner lac In the afternoon n tha d,v IN
compliance with the writ making however no return
which considered uiimpOrtani from the petition itself
inferred Tint there were parties interested to whom the
statute eSf directs tina: the like notice sha be ven
OF the time an place at which such writ shall haze be
made reaate az required be given Of special mo-
tons IN 10, Saltne Court Of this Stlte2 r. 8. $50
gna-o ana Ia ext section sufcien. notice directed
to be given to the District Attorney where appears "a.
! the party i detained on a criminal accusation
Proceedings similar to those under which Surteyan: was
detained have been generally considered as part.Aag
criminal description, least being quls criminal
therefore found necessary adjourn this matter until
the SVh INST giving the prisoner that afternoon and the
next DAY to serve those notices which would give fall eight
days for the service of the notice the interested parties
excluding the last day, which was Sunday
O that day. pursuant to the adjournment the prisoner
wns brought before by Mr. Yutee the Deputy Sheriff
to whose custody committed him, on which occasion
was attended by Mr. Bronson counsel for the parties
interested by the District Attorney, and by Messrs Field
and Cowsts counsel for Surtevent The Sheriff made bis
return and alleged that he detained the prisoner by
OF warrant Of commitment issued by the Superior Court
which commitment found TO be auhe ncated by the seal
OF said Court and by the signature of its Clerk thus prov
ing itself.
The counsel Of Sturtevant nterposed reply to this re-
TURF, alleging that when the said warrant issued the
same was not authorized by any legal Judgment order
of the Superior Court
IN the nature demurrer to the return
raised the question for my consideration whether there
wac any legal Judgment order in the Supreme Court 10
authorize the Issuing Of this warrant II appeared to
that the language Of 40 subd g. r. S. sec. 567
too clear ard peremptory to admit Of any hesitation
this point could notloOk behind the commitment The
ecacous enforcement Of the decisions Of Courts Of jus
tce the maintenance of their dignity the preservation
of their independence the avoidence Of unseemy and
disorgenzing collisions between the several tribunals
qure strict construction to this section and TO repeat
the language OF the subdivision OF the section which
plies to this case when any contempt is specially and
plainly charged in the commitment by Court having
authority to commit for the contempt so charged the
prisoner must be rcmanded.
But although the Judge Court before whom habs1s
corpus is reurnablc has right to go behind the com
milne nj, review the proceedings Of committing
magistrate Court yet he may inquire whether the pro-
commitment is valid its face and also whether
any has arisen since the commitment for putting
end TO the imprisonment The People We Cassels, HIN
1854
And for the same cannot look into the order
which the prisoner in his petition and by his
sci alleges to have been made by Isce BOsworth
the eb January staying proceedings in the matter until
2ls of the same month This may be good reason TO
address TO the Superior Court for vacatng the commit
If any Of It's officers have issued process in vio
Gon of order Of one of it. Jud yes the subject
cluvey for their determination II only be decided
motion by the tribunal whose order is disobsyed No
other tribunal coGteay interfere with the and
practice of that Court Process issued in dre gard of an
order OF single Judge is not necessarily and per void,
and if not void per on its face bound under the
section above referred to- to deem operative forhe pur
pose for which il was issued Nothing in short, extrane
The only question that remains therefore for mo to
consider IT, whether there any defect omission the
face OF the commitment 30 render invalid Ii sssserted
by the counsel for the prisoner that Is not sufficient in
the commitment merely to aege the contempt, but the
facts constituting the contempt must be set forth To
oure this however would virtually authorize me 10 90
bohind the commitment which have already shown,
cannot do The only object Of rectng the facts would be
10 make judge Of the conclusion deduced by the
Superior Court from these facts vita this hsye nothing
to do. OF this they were exclusively the judges II the
facts infinitely recalled and came TO the conclusion
that The! did not cOnstue contempt, stu must reaog'
niZe the validity of the commitment The Court Issuing
the warrant must decide what is insult TO their dignity
violation Of their orders 1t is enough for that
they c0rge acontmp specially and plainly and that they
have authsIit TO commit Tor tho contempt so Charged.
The only point which has induced any hesitation my
part in the determination Of this matter is the want of
pea to the Superior Court Having been taken from the
later TO the former Court. in order to restore to the
ror Court jurisdiction over the maser il must be remittot
there from the appellate Court After recng tne order of
Tie Superior Court at Special Term and ITS nhrmance at
General Term aad The appeal by Surtevant to the Court
of Appeals the commitment merely states that the said
Judgment by lac Court of Appeals the 3st day OF
December 1852 in al things affirmed with costs NC.
il does not state in express terms that il was remtted so
as to reposses the Superior Court of the This really
appears be the only plausible objection started n
this discussion for ii may with some force be alleged
that VIXEN human liberty s in question nothing should be
left to ntendmen and that the law in its vigilance over
and its sOicude for personal rights requires critical OK
acttude in everything designed 10 interfere with that lib
erty
But On the ether hand everything is presumed IN favor
Of Courts of general u.dcton while in Courts Of special
and limited jurisdiction the facts giving it jurisdiction
mast be crcumssDtally alleged In this commmsnt the
possession Cd the b. the Appellate Court Is alleged,
but the r6mfur is not alleged; still enough, IN my
opinion il forth to authorize to presume that 1t
was RENTED -from the Very fact tina, the original Court
has resumed jurisdiction by the issuing Of process
in other words the exercise of Jurisdiction presupposes
repression Of the and consequently Jurisdiction
Overit Besides, can inquire of all ino the subject
of jurisdiction in connection with process Issued
by Court Of general jurisdictionl On this
inquiry think not. This is not GIRL process in the
sense of section Al, aud il is sufficient for me, in &c
cordsnce with section 40 the commitment specially and
plainly charges contempt am bound know officially
that the Supreme Court has in lis character of Court of
general jurisdiction authority TO COMMIT for contempt so
charged For these reasons must remand the prisoner
to the custody of the Sheriff.
After the decision, directing that the hsbeas corpus be
dismissed Judge made order reman ding Aid TO the
custody of the Sheriff under the original commitment the
record of proceedings under the habeas corpus being at
tached to the warrant
Mr. CowLEs then moved that certiorau be allowed,
ticking the proceedings the babsas corpus before the
General Term Supreme Court. The seraorari was al
lowed and consequently it is contended stay for the
rresen. Of proceedings.
FURTHER PARTICULARS or THE RAVENS-
WOOD EXPLOSION
large number of people visited the ruins Of the ex
ploded cartridge mandatory yesterday, many of whom
wero ladies' TO the fatal spot which has Of late