Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1868-01-23

tbs -DEBosE HABEAs CoRPvs Co.'S
TEMPT CAsE.-Yesisrday afternoon the
habeas corpus case Of ]. DuBOse was
again taken up in the Law Court. Mr..
Sale, for the prisoner, coulended for his
release upon several grounds:
First-That the writ does not run in
the name Of the State Of Tennessee, but
in the name Of the Judge and Clerk OF
Court.
Secopd-The petitioner had no pro-
cess served upon him. notifying him TO
appear, ETC., and had no trial
Third-The judgment appearing upon
the face Of the writ is unlawful, and be-
yond the jurisdiction of this court.
Fourth-The writ is insufficient, in not
clearly setting out that some specific act
Of contempt had been committed.
The case Of Mayor and Aldermen OF
Nashville VS., Dyer, Penn 4 Co., Tennes-
see Reports, was cited in support ofthese
propositions The process must run in
the name of the State. A party must be
notified to appear, in order to have an
opportunity to purge himself of the con-
tempt. Ifthis is not so, then he would
have to remain in Jail for all eternity,
for there he would have to remain until
the fine imposed was paid, and he
purge himself of contempt by taking
back the offensive language, even
although he believed it to be true.
The Jurisdiction of the County Court
is a limited one-simply fine of ten
dollars and no imprisonment can follow.
The right of court to judge of its own
contempts does not come up in this case
The illegal punishment can be investi-
gated. [Cited the case Of Martin ca
parte.] Cases like this were appearing
every day in Memphis. 1t is a new
thing, and without referring to the pres
ent case, is of opinion that those judges
most sensitive on the subject of con :
tempts are generally the most contempt
ible. If this state Of affairs continues,
the time will come when the wives of
judges will bring forth courts instead of
children, as the judges seem to have
contempt on the brain"
The pc tition asserts that no contempt
was committed in the presence of the
Court. The assault was made upon an
individual, not on a court.
In answer.to the question whether
there was any other inference deducible
from the papers than that the assault was
committed upon the Court while the
Court was not in session, Mr.. Sale re-
piled that the petition negatives that sup
position or inference, by denying that il
was in the presence of the Court, and nc
replication or other pleading had been
filed to meet that denial. His speech
occupied about two hours.
Mr.. Sale was replied to by Mr.. Hudson,
who regarded the decision Of court in
q contempt case final, and that no other
court could inquire into it. The sheriff
had made his return and was released
from further answer. The plaintiff de-
murs to this return, admitting the facts
to be true, but saying that they were moi
sufficient in law. The County Court had
final jurisdiction in this matter, and thai
decision cannot be reviewed by another
court, for in this matter the County Court
is equal to this one in jurisdiction.
Mr.. Randolph-In order to explain oul
position, / will state that while we admit
that every court can judge of its OWL
contempts, any other court may judge
whether any contempt was committed a.
all.
The Court-That opens the whole
matter.
Mr. Hudson cited from Blackstone az
10 the definition of contempts, both direci
and consequential, etc.
The Court adjourned without arriving
at any conclusion, with the understand
ing that the case would be brought up al
one clock this afternoon.
m I AN