The Hawaiian gazette., 1870-08-10
Supreme Court.

BEFORE Mr.. JUSTICE HAETwELL, AT CHAMBERS,
IY THE MATTER OF GIP An CHAN ALIAS An
The petition for a writ of Ha5eaS Corpus, was
filed July 2nd, by VIC. Jones, the prisoners at
torney, and states that the prisoner is illegally
strained of his liberty for no criminal matter, by
J. II. Coney, Sheriff of Hawaii, by virtue of
process issued by d. II. Hitchcock, Police Jus
tice of Hio, at the suit of one L. V. Husbands,
a rule was made, to show cause why the writ
should not issue
The Attorney General argued that the
petition failed to show prinsa .facie case,
that it should set forth the precise cause of
detention If known, and that the writ should
be denied, unless it appeared that the process I'M
der which the prisoner is held was not voidable
merely, but actually void.
Mr.. Stanley opposed the rule in behalf of w.
L. Green, the legal representative of Iheophilus
Metcaf, of the agent Husband, and of the owners
Of the Metcalf plantation, whose names were not
specified, with the exception of Gilbert Waller,
claiming as one fifth owner. Mr.. Stanley argued
that the case showed no probable cause and no
want of jurisdiction in the Magistrate, and that
in any case the writ should not issue to deprive
parties of their rights by appeal or error.
Messrs. Thompson and Jones argued in sup
port Of the rule, that although the writ W oud be
denied if on its own showing the petition showed
case not within its purview, q specific state
ment further than to alege illegal restraint
for no criminal matter was not requisite
The Court ordered the petition to be amend
ed by statement of the cause Of detention,
whereupon the petitioners filed an amend
ment, reciting the process under which the
petitioner is held At further hearing on the
rule Mr.. Thompson argued that the process was
issued under a void law inasmuch as the prisoner
was guilty of no crime, and Art. II of the Con-
stitution prohibits involuntary servitude except
for crime that the mittmus was void as it does
not show the names of the agents and owners of
the " Met plantation" and because it prescribes
no limit to the time of the Imprisonment, and is
issued under Sec. 1920 regardless of the amend
ment of the Act of 1860, which limits the impris-
onment in this class of cases to a term not ex-
ceeding three months.
Mr.. c. c. Harris in behalf of the heirs of Theo-
phuS Metcalf, argued against the rule, that this
proceeding was not intended for an inquiry into the
merits of the case, which can be done by appeal
only. That this was lawful process of a lawful
Court and must stand until declared void by full
Court on error. That Art IL of the Constitu-
ton was intended against chattel slavery and
not against Acts which the law has prohibited.
That crime means a NAHUM prohibit,m as well
a NAHUM per Sc, that if the mttimus is defec-
tive from vagueness this is not the mode to test
its validity. That the amended law of l860reiers
only to second commitments by the Magistrate,
and it does not appear that this was such That
the Court will never issue the writ unless the law
under which the Magistrate acted is palpably
and unansweraby unconstitutional
Mr.. Jones in reply argued that the writ
of Habeas Corpus is a mode of exercising
appellate jurisdiction in cases like his 1t
was thereupon ordered that the writ do issue
as prayed for returnable, July %, at which day
the Marshal made return of the body of the prison.
err alleging the cause of his detention to be the
mittimus of which duplicate was set forth in
the amended petition. Time was asked by
Messrs Stanley and Harris to answer. and was
fixed for July p, at which day they filed this
plea, viz And now come the undersigned.
attorneys for the Representatives of the Metcalf
Plantation. and for answer submit. that the re-
turn to the writ of Habeas Corpus is not full, in
that it only sets forth mittmns. and whereas
in truth and in fact the subject matter in ltiga
ton before the Police Court at HilO, was deser-
ton of the Petitioner from service under a con-
tract like unto the copy on file but that the con-
tract used in evidence, and under which the pc
titioner was brought before the Police Court of
Hilo and tried contained an endorsement in the
words and figures following. to wit : l. J. 5. Rod
gers in consideration of the sum of One Hundred
& fifty Dollars to me paid by Theo Metcalf do
hereby assign this contract unto the said Theo.
Metcalf his Representation & assigns under the
agreements and covenants within contained which
are to be done, kept and performed by the said
Theo. Metcalf.
Witness my hand this 9th day of July A. D.
1865
Signed j. S. ROGERS.
Witness
Signed WIN. G. IRWIN"
Also that the records of the Court will show
that r. V. Husbands who made the complaint
against the petitioner for desertion from service
under such contract, was the agent Of the repre-
sentatives of Theo. Metcaf and manager of the
Metcalf Plantation, and the undersigned submit
that the return to the writ of Habeas Corpus
should be amended and it thereafter traversed 10y
the petitioner, that writ of certiorari issue to
bring up the record of said Court All of which
the undersigned are ready to verify"