Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1866-08-15
LOCAL NEWS.

charged fran Cgstody.-This morning. Judge
Fisher gave his decision "a the case OF George
+ Hotchklss, who was yesterday brought
from Jail on 4 writ of habeas corpus. where he
was confined under a commitment by the SUI
perintendeni of Police for contempt. The de-
CIsion was as follows
The United States er rel. George r Hptchkiss
rs. Brown, warden OF the laiI of the District
of Columbia Habeas corpus before Justice
Fisher
The defendant in this case being absent from
the city At the time OF the issuing OF the writ of
hdbedS corpus. Jedediah Cuttings, the deputy
warden, makes return as follows AS with
IN commanded. L have the body of George r
Hotchkiss before your Honor, with the cause
OF has capture and detention. August IL. 1863.
''JED'H Cuttings, Deputy Warden"
D'Sfrscf 81 Columbia, County Of Washington. 70
'cat I o the W arOen of the jan in the District
of Columbia: Receive into your custody the
body of George r. Hotchkiss. herewith sent by
a. T.. Ecklof, Metropolitan Police Oficer of
said county, brought before me. A. G.. Richards.
one OF the Justices of the Peace IN and Tor the
said county. and charged BY me with being
guilty OF contempt OF Court in wIlfully refus-
ing to obey a mandate laid upon HIM accord
ing 10 law, while sitting as 4 court Him.
therefore, safely keep in your said custody
until he shall be discharged by due course of
law. and for so doing this shall be your suf-
Given under my hand and seal. this 18th day
OF August, lSG6. a &. RiCHAEDS.
Seal Ex-Ohicio. J. r.
The motion 10 discharge the prisoner mas
been argued by his counsel, Mr. Norris and
Nr. Fendall, on four grounds: LIST That there
is no power ia MAJOR Richards, the Superin-
tendent Of the Metropolitan Police, to commit
the prisoner for contempt, because admitting
him TO be an officer Justice of the peace. still
the power OF justice 10 commit for contempt
did not exist al common law, nor has II been
vested in the magistrate by any enactment OF
Congress, or of the Legislature of Maryland
I'd. Supposing Major Richards 10 possess the
power OF committing Tor contempt one of his
own officers, yet the relatOr ia THIS case, not
holm an Tfffs y I,
bound to obey his order 10 produce money
which he had taken beyond the limits OF the
District, from parties charged with me lar
ceny thereof beyond such limits. Sd That
even admitting ne had the power to commIr
for contempt one who was not a member OF
his police force, in disoheying his order, sui
the commitment Is defective upon lis face IN
being unlimited as 10 the time during which
the relator was 10 remain in prison. An. That
ii Is defective also in that il does not show in
what the alleged contempt consisted.
On the part Of the defendant IL was argued
by Mr.. Bradley. Jr-, LIST, That the power OF a
justice 10 lmprison for contempt existed at
common law, which was in force in thIs Dis
trlct, Pspec ially when the off Ger of he astce
refused TO obey his order. I'd That though
the relator is not member of the Netropoli-
tan police force directly responsible TO the
superintendent for neglect or refusal 10 dis
charge his duty or 10 obey the mandates of tee
superintendent, yet by virtue OF the 7th sec
ton OF the act of Congress of 23d of July, Is66
every person pursuing the business OF a de-
without II, upon making an arrest OF a party
alleged to be guilty of crime, immediately
to bring the alleged offender with whatever
property he may have taken into his possession
from the accused. TO the effice of the Superin-
tendent OF Police, TO be deposited with the
Property Clerk: that il is admitted tnat the
relator had arrested the alleged offenders and
received the stolen property from them and
had sent 81 per cent. thereof 70 the parties
claiming To have lost il. retained 20 per cent
lor MS services IN recovering II; thar he was
ordered by the Superintendent TO deliver 10
him the said ~ per cent--abouJ S5gJ-and
1alllng 10 do so, the Superintendent committed
him 10 Jail Tor contempt In disobeying thar
ORDER. Sd, That it is not necessary that the
which constitute the contempt l. Is
sufficient that IL show that the Su-
perintendent convicted him by his own
adjudication of the contempt. without further
disclosure. 4th. That the want OF limitation
of the time of Imprisonment was not material
Tor that, inasmuch as this was a case OF CON-
hitting for contempt, not as a punishment for
an act done and ended. but 70 enforce the per
Torrance OF duty which the law enjoined
upon the relator, i; was lawful 10 imprison
MIN indefinitely, or until he should purge him.
self OF the contempt of which he was guilty by
a compliance with the order, IN which event
he would be discharged by due course OF law.
5th. That in case OF hGbedS corpgS the Judge
cannot look behind the commitment OF a cour:
having competent jurisdiction.
IL Is true. as a general rule. that a COM
mltment Tor contempt cannot properly De
examined into by any other court or Judge
than the one who awarded IL. especially
when its propriety is sought 10 oe cues
toned upon writ of hGLeas corpus. since
the question as 10 the validity OF the judgment
OF the committing court arises III collateral
way, and not by way of review. Neyerthe.
less, II is a great prerogatiye writ, the object
Of which is 10 guard against oppression: and
IL Is the duty OF the court or judge before
which the hearing on the hobeds corpus is had
to inform himself at the outset whether
the committing court is court having
competent jurisdiction 10 render a Judg-
ment Of contempt, and If of COM
petent jurisdiction for that purpose to
know whether the Jurisdiction has been ex-
ceeded; for If the facts in the case be plainly
ting court could not exercise a lawful juris-
dictIon, the judgment of contempt must neces-
sarily be unlawful. Whether the alleged Of
lender mas really committed the act charged as
contempt is, also. question which will be
conclusively determined by the Judgment OF
the court before whom 1t is alleged 10 have
been committed; and so il the act be an equiv
ocal one, harmless or criminal, according TO
Its surroundings, Its inEocense or culpability
10 to be determined by the court committing
the alleged offender. II is not contended that
the Superintendent OF Police has any larger
powers in a case Of this sort than are conferred
by law upon q Justice OF the Peace. The lu-
risdiction OF justices is a special one, ana in
case OF habeds corpus. as wei as In appeal or
certiorcri, il is the duty OF the Judge having
the case to inquire first Of all, whether the JUS
tice has acted within the limits Of his jurIsdic-
ton. -.....
If, in this case, the Superintendent of Po-
lice had clear and unquestioned jurisdiction
over George +. Hotchkiss, the reiator.
the same as though he had been a member OF
his police force, and IL the property alleged 10
have been taken by said relator from the par
ties who are charged with having stolen il,
had been stolen by them within the District OF
Columbia, and had within the District, been
taken from them on their arrest by the relator,
and he had disobeyed the order OF the Super
intendent to deliver TO him the fruits OF the
crime. 1 am of opinion IL would have been
competent for the Superintendent. acting in
the capacity Of magistrate, 10 have sent him
TO prison fer the contempt of such disooedi