The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1874-05-11
HABEAs CORPUS an CASE OF
STATE VS.. JOsHN CADEN.
The Prisoner Discharged by Order
OF Chicf Justice PIcrpOint.

|
The habeas corpus in the case of the
State VS.. John Caden of this place, was
heard before Chief Justice Pierpoint on
Saturday, at the Stevens house, in Nergen-
mes. The hearing was convened at nine
o'clock in the morning. Quite delega-
ton from Rutland were present, embrac-
ing several oil the "CitizensCommittee, and
others, among whom were Ben. X. Chase,
j. NJ. Haven, II. w. Nye, Justice b. W.
Marshall. The prisoner was in charge of
! Sheriff Field. and was represented by N.
| p. Simons and Aldace +. Walker. as coun-
sell States-Attorney f. J. Ormsbee, w. G.
State.
1t appeared from the return that the
sheriff claimed to hold the prisoner under
two commitments issued upon two con-
victions before Justice b. w. Marshall on
the same day, one for selling intoxicating
drinks, being the prisoners third conviction
for that offence, under which
sentence of three months impris-
onment was imposed, with a fine of $40
and costs and another for keeping ntoXi-
eating liquors with intent to sell, under
which fine of $40 and costs was imposed;
the respondent to stand convicted until
both fines and all costs were paid.
After the reading by j. c. Baker TO the
court of the return and the several process
ses issued, A. f. Walker, as counsel for
the respondent, read the answer, com
mcnting upon the various matters ii con
tanned, being substantially the following
points
That the commitment delivered TO the
tailor, and under which the detention of
the respondent was sought to be justified,
recited judgment against John Caden
when no such judgment had been rendered,
but a joint judgment against John and
Thomas Caden;
That said commitment directed the
jailor to receiCe the respondent for three
months from date, without specifying any
term for which he should detdin him;
That the fine imposed was forty dollars,
but the record did not show that the re-
| spondent had been convicted of more than
one otfense. for which the maximum fine
| allowed by law is twenty dollars
| That the conviction for keeping intoXi-
eating liquors was illegal, that oilcnsc hay
ing been merged in the previous conviction
for selling the same liquor;
| That the complaint was insufficient in
| failing to set forth the date of the former
convictions relied upon, as required by
| law, and that it had been tempered with
since the trial by inserting in two places
| the figures "1S13
4, II H.. ILL.,,
| and Thomas Caden were present in court
| when sentence of Imprisonment was pro-
| nounccd, and that in fact Thomas Caden
was not so present
That the sentence was not sufficiently
definite to be capable of enforcement, and
was illegal
That the officers return upon the commit
ment failed to show that the respondent
either neglected or refused to pay the fines
mposed
That said commitment was issued while
the respondents right to appeal was still ex
stent, the case having been held open by
the Justice and the respondent having ten
dered bail for appeal in season.
Counsel for the state offered rs evidence
| the original commitments which were accep
ted as showing the difference between them
and the copies returned.
| JUDGE DUNToN.
| Mr.. Dunton, for the State, argued that
the matter was settled by the conviction of
the prisoner; that the Court was not TO
re-cxamine the proceedings Of the magis-
trate; that the mittimus was sufficient and
the copy would not mislead any one though
the name of Thomas Caden was left out.
Chief Justice Plcrpoint stated at this
| point that the mistake embodied in the
| first count of the answer, was a very ma
terial point and was difficult to be passed
over. lie would like to hear from the
counsel for the State on that point.
STATES ATTORNEY oRMsBEE.
States Attorney Ormsbec considered the
case too serious to have the error OF an
officer make all subsequent proceedings il
though the copy was wrong. The Court
must rule that the copy was the only thing
to rely on or he could show that the COM
mitment was right and the prisoner prop
erly committed on process issued against
both respondents in fact a legal imprison-
ment.
Mr.. Dunton then asked in case the de-
; feet in the copy could not be passed over
by the Court that the case be continued
until Monday, giving an opportunity for
counsel to present arguments in writing.
NJ p sIMoNs.
Mr. Smons considered the case of too Sc
rious nature for the respondent for tho
granting of a continuance No shadow Of
authority could be raised to ask it, and ne
, future, to contradict the points raised. |
came not with good grace for the counse
on the other side to talk of the seriousness
of their case, when the respondent was helC
in Jail and deprived of his liberty by an il
! legal commitment.
Mr.. Dunton answered that the point
brought up by the counsel for the respond
Ia ent were new to him, and he had therefor
had no chance to investigate them. Consc
quently he hoped the matter might be dc
- layed till Monday.
~ The court said, in concluding his dec
sion, il he thought the counsel had any ar
T. thority or could find such authority where
y by the respondent could be detained in jai
- he should be disposed to hold the case ope
IL until Monday. But he did not believe an
IL such authority could be cited that Il
greater defect could be brought up than tn
x omission, and, in consequence of that, !
t. ordered that the prisoner be discharged
&c As will be noticed, the court in decidil
to discharge the prisoner, did so upon Il
first ground above stated, holding that
misdescription of the parties to the jud
IL | n,apt xuoo OF, tn inva1i1ata tbp nor