Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-01-24
THE DuBOSE CONTEMPT CASE
The Line Of Argument and
Progress Of the Case.

In the contempt case of J. J. DuBose,
now being investigated on writ of habeas
corpus before Judge Pierce Of the Law
Court, Mr. Hudson resumed his argument
on behalf Of the County Court, and in.
vited attention to the question as to
whether the Judge OF the Law Court
could grant a writ of habeas corpus where
a party was declared in contempt by
another court. He insisted that the
County Court had original Jurisdiction
In many cases, and concurrent jurisdlc.
ton over the question Of contempt with
the Chancery and Circuit Courts, and
cited History Of Law Suit, 747, case Of
Brian w. 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
Ia the presence OF the Court, aud cited
the Code In regard tc punlshments for
eOntempts.
Judge Pierce-Could the Circuit Court
imprisOn a party until be purge himself
Of contempt where the offense does not
consist of the nOn-perfOrmance Of some
duty ordered?
Mr.. Hudson-I was of the opinion that
In many cases It could do so. No court
could issue a writ Of hsbeas corpus where
a party il under sentence of another court
Of concurrent Observation-Disclosures T2a,
aud cases cited therein. Courts, at some
time, MAJ have held that they might in
quire into the facts of the contempt, but
the right Of authority will be found the
other wsy-4th Johnson, $50, being q de-
oision on hsbess corpus.
Mr.. Rardolph-There is q case In 9th
Johnson which overTuled that case in
4th johnson.
Mr.. Hudson-Did not 80 understand
the ruling Of the Court. Tread the case
at length.
Mr.. Rsndolph-The English Courts are
not restrained by statute as to punish
for contempts. Our Courts are re-
strained by statute. We shall insist upon
this point, to show that the English de-
cited by council are not appliOA-
BILE to contempt cases before our Courts.
Mr. Hu6son-In support Of the doc
Irine that this Court is not authorized 10
interfere with other Courts in matters OF
this ehsracter, We cite the case Of Gates
Y Lancing, 9th Johnson; also the case
1f The People W. Hevins, lst Hill Har-
Digest, vol. 2. 222i same Digest,
vol. 3, 3O7; in eth Wheaton, e5 pdTte
Kearuy, on application for hG6e0s cor
pas.
Story, Justiee-Delivered the opinion
the Court, and refused the writ. The
doctrine was affirmed in Sd Peters,
and writ refused by Marshall, Justice
% Humphreys; Martin ca pdrte.
There has been no decision in u
State on this subject, since the case in ID
Humphreys. We must look to the deci-
lions in other States. 1t is claimed that
20 notice was giysn to the defendant
This was not necessary. Cited +Ih John
Of Yates-snd Sd Hill, APP
Judge Leonard has not exceeded the
authority given him by statute. Mr..
Hudson cited the Code, section 1852
Iabeas Corpus Aet-and CONCLUDED his
argument Ey summing up his positions
in his argument, and asked the
Court to remand the prisoner to jail.
Mr.. Henry, on behalf Of the County
,ourt. commenced bis argument, and
the course pursued by Mr. Hud-
on. He insisted that the paper issued to
he Sheriff was simply a mittimus. He
discussed at length the provisions Of the
yede applicable to the case. The hour Of
.djournment having arrived, the further4
.rgumenU viii be resumed to-day, at Il,
N. Mr.. Henry will continual
lis speech, and the argument will b@f'
losed by Mr. Randolph for the petiHe,
ioner. We present merely a brief out
inc of the arguments in this interesting
nd important case.