, 1861-11-21
DEcls1or or JunaB masrerRn.
6UstRfL tnx the Heform School,

Sustaining th. sssform school,,
We present below the decision Of his
He1cr Judge Manierre, of the Circuit Court,
2ately delivered In An application for writ
cf:hebeas eo,pus By one Joseph Rock, to taks
his son from the Reform School. The de-.
cislon Is most Importsat one touching COM
mttments BY the Reform School sUoznuts-
:zstortr, and removes the legal obstacles which
tave for long tlme clogged the advancement
Of this all important Institution Anything
1etardtng the progress Of the Rtkorm School
cannot but prove eourca Of evil, md the
community will rejoice, a well a. the ofReeu
oftke School, 1t the establishment OF tho in
poEtant principles laid down IN this
DECISION
This Is an application Of Joseph Rock for wit
q heo<as o69pss. alleging that bis son. M1cha& 1
schsol II virtue Of : warrant tssued On tie iii
asy Of October last. .by Lewis Il Davis Justice OF
the Peaco: 4 COPY ofthe warrant IL sanexed to
,ss RsRsers ~ ~ 3as
charged With being desltiute Of proper parental
care, in pu1.uaaee Of tho provisions ef The Al
School, n force February I'D. 1sG1. The warrant
further alleges that the boz Was duly sent and ex-
4m11attcn h8d before the Comm1tefoner appointed
Commissioner deciaed that be was : gaita bie per
sen for commitment to the Reform School. and
certified bis decikton to the Justice OF the Peace
WHO thereupoA 1esued the warrant Ct fcoHsairmspt
11der Which the bsy is noW hed.
The petition denies that Michael Was destitute
proper parental care at the time OF his conYip-
mons Of otherHise was given to tie petitioner af
the apprehension Of his son. or Of the time and
plsse of The @ e1a1tastion q required By said law
cred cn the application. and this opinion riil
he1e1oIs ot strictly confined to them.
Ihs 6Ist + whether evidence can be adduced In
co1Tus ints the cansc Of commitment. viii 1 yieT
of ttceifa1ntng whether the Judgment Of the con-
nntt1ns magistrate was nos erroneous. It IL IN
esurt, whether OF an inferior OF sapeTior charac-
ter; having jurisdiction Of the, subject 1natter,
snd Of TIE pelson cannot be colI@terally inqaired
II CID only be reviewed on appeal or error a,I Il
stand Without the power Of review
Ing the Reform School, aud tie decisions Of ths
magistrate hereunder, to be rsgarded Al In theIl
nature judicial and as having the force and effect
this question by declaring that the h1dlng Of tbs
commissioner and bis aecfs1on thereon shau not
I'D II &c ss :. Ss & sny Or
te.t]y attests that their nature IL Judicial
This provision therefore answers the quest!oa
dence may be reviewed collatera5 On ha5eas corpus
or otherwise IN the negative.
The SECOND question presented on the applic4-
Khich falls to show that notice vas givea to the
iather OF the apprehension OF hiE son rs required
By the At Il therefore void; Or i not void By
tao1 OF want Of notice can Be raised OF ha6eas
ce1pus, By Ayerme1t, and II found against the
1eeora then whether the whole proceeding my be
and flyst 7helher fhe warrant +. vo,d m q. f.c.
Or not: The warrant cau4ot be held void PET 80,
tof The Want or recital Of notice because, a.
taonga tae ssafats expressly proEides that the
ehxll issue summons, or 4ottcc, to the father OF
sther guardian to appear at the tina and place ap
Ronfdd nat Re- and shoE Eh bs
yet it E.~he: provides t at the notice shall be
rec1ted In the warrant Of comnitment. On the
contrary, the statute settles and p.escribes tbs
form Of the warrant to be used in anch cases,
ana this form contains no recital of notes. H.T-
Ing prescribed form and declared that No variance
from Il ahall be aeemed material. provided it snt
the commitment Was made In the exercise Of the
PoWers given By the Act the Legislature by irres-
,sta9s ,a 1Itsndme1t desare that warrant aaa1 be
Ala eecundly, whether on IhabeGs c55pus, the
warrant undar the STATUTE IL csrclustye, or only
R'4na tacts EVIDENCE Of regularity and legality II
it IL provided That n al cases where tbs leaalisY
Of any commitment to the Reform School Is SalIe9
| N question: such commitment shall be deemed
face chow iegai eauss Of commitment' a snd
thst IN al casee, whether upon hadeas corpus OF
| oiheIW1se, The Court before Which such cause 10
he variant It is doubtless SC competent m foF the BE-
| Legislature to determine what shall be the force
and effect OF Judicial proceeding and legal pro
hs 2es a. aqs T. ssp se z
has been cited sufficiently atteete the tntentfon ot
the Ltet1latqre to treat the warrant conclusive
MIR a,i sut1cient On IT, face, Whenever de aass M
tion shal1 &rtse on Adbtas eotpus. The statute IL
express terms declares that the duty or the court
ton d t6s 1.zraat and decision a 4. to its
regularity: !. The warrant annexed to t6e
petition IN this case sufficient: Does It dis
mitm Mt; 1t Is IN snbstance In Tie form prescribet
by the statute ard must be deemed euficteut be
cause the Act declares 1t shall be- It sets forth
itssl Cause @ Of Commitment because it shows ess'
| izcd to inquire and commit. Therefore the war
rant must be treated as ralid and conclusive evi
deDSe % On hdbtas corpus Of the legality Of the de
But the etatute under which these proceeding
Te1e had expressly provides that the parent ahal
have notice thereof, aud this requiren snt is per
empto5y, and shall q Judgment void for want q
no1iec be absolutely binding and co1c1uslvo: /
5ers ne 70 Fe%ea! Think not Wall
made On Aa5sas eS1pas, It WI lot the % inte@tio s
the Legislature to deprive the party Of the usua
and ordinary remedy Of fctrtionara provided BY l.,
court Or ju.is dictton. Tbs true construction {
The law is that the jud.ment shall not be collxte
a1y 1ngeached On h96eos corpus or otherwise
not that 1t may not be inspected On direct pr
ctfding for that purpose.
The Iemedy then 81 the party In this case, II n
notice vas giEen to the petitioner as alleged, wa
to E9e oRt OF this Court q eertiorari, directed t
the comniss1ouer and the committing magistrat.
commanding them to send up the records OF thei
h6s power to award this writ TO al Inferior trib,
nsls ard jurisdictions whenever 1t is ehown eiths
that they eave exceed. d the limits OF their furi
d1ctten. or In Cases where they have proceeded
legally and 10 appeal is allowed or other moi
Shs sad e. adtd5effly y reviewing their proceeding
But On this writ the duty Of the Court IL Hnite
to q mere inspections Of the record it hiss I
power to review the Judgment On ths eviaenc
The application fer wit Of ha5fas eo7pus In tn
! cause K11l therefore have to be denied.
Claae Connections t. the East,
Thu pfsht frafns IN fhA Mifhioau Csntr