Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1868-01-24

Iht DubO6k tOhTthff nAhhAh Noh-
rus AT noon yesterday Mr.. Hudson
resumed his argument In the Law Court
in the above case. He invited atten.
ton 70 the question as 10 whether the
Judge of the Law Court could grant 0
writ Of habeas corpus where party
was declared in contempt by another
court-insisted that the County Court
had Original Jurisdiction in many cases,
and concurrent jurisdiction over the
question Of contempt with the Chancery
and Circuit Courts, and cited History OF
Law Suit TAI, case Of Brian VS.. Hart, 9th
Humphreys. 1t must be presumed that
Judge Leonard acted within the scope OF
his authority and jurisdiction, and had a
right to fine and imprison for contempts
committed in the presence of the Court,
and the Code in regard to punishments
for contempts:
Judge Pierce-Could the Circuit Court
imprison a party until he purge himself
of contempt where the ofense does not
consist Of the noRperformance Of some
duty ordered
Mr.. Hudson-I was of the opinion that
in many cases il could do 40. No court
could issue writ OF habeas corpus where
a party is uRder sentence of another
court of concurrent jsrisdiction-3d
Sneed 1913, and cases cited therein
Courts, at some time, may have he'd
that they might inquire into the facts Of
the contempt, but weight of authority
will be found the other wOy-4th John
son, 1856, being decision on habeas
corpus.
Mr.. Randolph-There is a case in 9th
johnson which overruled that case in 4th
Johnson.
Mr.. Hudson-Did not so understand
the ruling Of the Court. Tread the case
at length
Mr.. Randolph-The English courts are
not restrained by statute as to punish
msnt for contempts. Our courts are re-
strained by statute. We shall insist upon
this point, to show that the English deci-
sions cited by counsel are not applicable
to contempt cases before our courts.
Mr.. Hudson-In support Of the doc
trine that this court is not authorized to
interfere with other courts in matters of
this character, we cite the case of Gates
vs.. Lansing, 9th Johnson; also the case
of the People VS.. Nevins, LIST Hill; and
Harrison's Digest, vol 2, 222; same
Digest, vol. 3, 3O7. In 7th Wheaton, er
parte Kearney, on application for habeas
corpus, Story (Justice) delivered the
opinion of the court and refused the
writ. The same doctrine was affirmed
in Sd Peters, and writ refused by Mar
shall (Justice), I'd Humphreys, Martin
erparte.
There has been no decision in our
State on this subject, since the case in
I'd Humphreys. We must look to the
decisions in other States 1t is claimed
that no notice was given to the defend
ant. This was not necessary Cited 4th
Johnson-case of Yates-and Sd Hill,
Appendix.
Judge Leonard has not exceeded au-
thority given him by statute. Mr.. Hud-
son cited the Code, section 3752-Habeas
Corpus Act-and concluded his argu-
ment by summing up his positions taken
in his argument, and asked the Court to
remand the prisoner to Jail.
Mr. Henry, also on behalf of the County
Court, followed, pursuing the same line
of argument, and continuing until the
hour of adjournment. To-day Mr.. Hen
rvs speech will be concluded, and Mr..
Randolph will close the argument for the
petitioner.