Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1868-01-25

sary for courts to protect themselves
frSm contempt; but a Judge who goes
outside Of judicial action to revenge
personal injuries, places himself in a
contemplate position. Dae process Of
law is required to deprive citizen Of his
liberty, in support Of which Mr.. r. cited
the Milligan case, 4,h Wallace. In ha-
beas corpus the first question is; Is the
party legally Leld in custody. Legal
custody is by proper warrant. The
constitution provides that every warrant,
writ or process shall run in the name Of
the State. Eleventh Humphreys, Mayor
and Aldermen of Nashville VS., Perle.
If this defect appears upon the face of
the writ, the prisoner must be dis
charged.
The Court-Mr. Henry contended that
the process could be amended il found
defective.
Mr.. Randolph answered that crimi-
nal process cnnsot be amended. Ii is
necessary to arrest on new one. There
is no law authorizing County Judge to
issue such a process, signing himself
Thomas Leonard, Judge" Even JEFF
freys would not have attempted such
thing. Mr.. r. here cited 4th Sneed to
show that Leonard was not Judge, but
merely Chairman of the County Court.
Judge Leonard called Mr.. r. to order,
and the Court decided that he had been
personal, and was out of order.
Mr.. Randolph did not intend to be per-
sonal, but merely intended to characterize
Leonard's acts as the record shows them.
No order was made by this County Court
to arrest these parties. 1t does not APP
pear upon this paper; it should have
been certified to by the County Clerk.
No one can be held upon such paper
as this, for it is impossible to give it
baptismal name it is nothing. This is
merely proceeding of a person assum-
ing to be court, not of court, for no
court can be styled SO when it exceeds its
jurisdiction Cited Broom's Legal Max
inns. Judge Leonard off the bench is
nothing more than private citizen,
whatever he may consider himself This
court is net revising the action of
court, but the action Of man assuming
to be what he is not. A County Court is
a court of inferior jurisdiction, neg GER
tainly Of superior jurisdiction. Cited
Hurd on Habeas Corpus, to show that
where process is. void or illegal writ
of habeas corpus is the remedy. Had
the court authority to issue such writ as
this signed By Judge Leonardo No
odor of sanctity clings around court
when it exceeds its proper authority,
either Intentionally or through igno-
rance. No general jurisdiction attaches
to the County Court on the subjects Of
contempt But for special statute, the
Judge thereof would have no power to
punish for contempt at ALL There is no
record in this paper, nothing to act upon,
whether this Court be of inferior or su-
perior jurisdiction, no presumption Of ju-
risdiction can attach. 1t must clearly
appear upon the record. In summary
proceedings everything must appear
upon the record. The recital in this pa
per shows that these defendants were not
in Court when this writ was issued. The
defendants were tried, when absent, with
out notice-fned ten dollars, and SEN
fenced to be imprisoned until the
fine was paid, and ten days there
after, and until they purge them
selves of the contempt Where
can such an example of tyranny be
found2 A Judge assaulted-necessarily
offended = assuming vindictive part,
even employing counsel to prosecute,
and intending to keep these parties in
prison until his revenge is stated, or until
they purge themselves Of contsmpt. This
paper says he was assaulted for acts done
in his official duty. We wish those acts
could be shown to this Court. They
would present beautiful spectacle. Are
other courts to sit idly by and afford no
protection to the citizens thus perse
cuted2 There is maxim of law
wherever there is wrong there is
remedy. The Supreme Court in the Mil
igan case has set noble example to
other courts in matters of this char
acter, and this decision was made in a
time Of war, and now in these piping
times of peace" cannot courts afford
redress for such an injury Judge
Leonard is not omnipotent like a parlia-
ment. (Cited 9th Yerger er pare
MARTINI This case was decided before
our statute regulating proceedings in
contempt was framed. (Cited Meigg
Digest on contempts.) 1t never was
intended by the trainers of our Consti-
tuition, or the Legislature, to establish |
unlimited powers in courts; they in
tended to limit such. Gifted Under.
woods case in I'd Humphreys, to show
the necessity of giving parties notice of
trial. No such notice was given these
defendants by Judge Leonard. (Cited
25th Vermont, Judge Red6eld, to
show how illegal the action OF the Judge
was in this proceeding) Every party