New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-09-04
COJRT RECORD.
FRInAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1877.
First District Court,

State ex rel. Francis Frilot ct al vs. sher
if ct al,-Habeas corpus. The prisoners
were brought into court in obedience to the
writ represented by Hon. j. B Cotton,
Hon. A. Walker, s. Bslden and L. X. Wash
l1gton; Esgs tho State represented by
Hon. II. Z. Dibble, Assistant Attorney Gen
eral.
The petition for the writ alleges that re.
lators are illegally imprisoned by virtue OF
commitment emanating from the homer
able the Superior District Court for the
parish of Orleans.
II is contended hv the representative of
the State that the First District Court. be-
ing a court of exclusive criminal j1risdic-
ton, is without power to examine the le
gality Of commitment of Il civil court.
This position was virtually abandoned.
The power to grant the writ of habeas
corpus necessarily carries with II every in-
cideEtal poser necessary to make it effec-
tuai. The and every other district court
OF the State, derives its powers in the
premises from article 792 Of the Code of
Practice. 1t says THE district judges aud
the judge of the Criminal Court of New
Orleans, and the courts established or to
be established, whose jurisdiction exceeds
$500, shall alone have the right of granting
writs Of habeas corpus within their respect
i've Jurisdictions" The object Of the writ is to
furnish IL speedy ,deliverance to persons
illegally imprisoned. l. is certainly safe
guard against error ignorance ami tyranny.
Bat in granting relief under this writ the
courts must be guided by established Prin-
ciples of law and rules of procedure. The
general principles applicable to illegal i'm
prisonment does not apply in cases of con-
tempts of court, especially by courts of
record.
The cause Of regular and suffieitn
commitment can not be imputed into in
the summary proceeding of habeas corpus
because it is a Judgment under seal These
principles would not apply it the court Of
record should commit in a matter or pro
ceeding of which it had no jurisdiction
In ordinary cases OF imprisonment where
there is no judgment, not only thesuiiiciency
of the commitment, but other matter may
be Inquired into on the trial of habeas
corpus. Indeed, if a court of record should
presume to commit in matters over which
he had no Jurisdiction, his action would be
void or voidable, and prisoner discharged.
1t is conceded that the judge of the Su
perior District Court has jurisdiction in
matters of injunction, and has power to
punish for contempt. The court is invested
with jurisdiction by statute in matter of
Injunction, besides this court ia bound
iudicially to know the jurisdiction conferred
on the courts of the State. The comnittal
of these relators was clearly within the
scope of the jurisdiction conferred on the
Superior District Court.
Ii appears Fl ON records produced in this
case thai litigation had been going on for
years between relators and the Slaughter
house Company, in the Superior District
Court. Suits had been instituted and in
functions issued for and against each party,
all of which is pending before the Supreme
Court on appeal, except supplemental in
junction. Prohibitions had issued at the
instance of each party, commanding the
| Judge Of the Superior District Court to pro-
ceed no further against the relators, 1t has
been argued that these proceedings on
appeal diyesred the Judge OF the Superior
District Court of jurisdiction, and that the
commitment is void for want of jurisdiction.
An appeal with writ of prohibition, accord
ing to authorities, undoubtedly suspends
the jurisdiction. There is quite distinc-
ton between absolute want and abusing
jurisdiction. II the Judge of the Superior
District Court has abused his jurisdiction,
or misconceived his duty, it is not the prov
| iuce of this court to reviseit; redress against
any irregularity or excess must be revis ed
and corrected by the Supreme Court which
has ample power to review and correct
| errors, and also power to relieve these pris-
opers on account OF errors or irregularity
This court disclaims the power, in such a
summary manner, to review proceedings in
the ~rits before any court of record subject
to appellate CONTROL This view is well
stated in an English case recently decided:
.'Where commitment is by court, over
which court issuing the writ has no appel
late Jurisdiction, grounds of commitment
can not be inquired into" Ia Q. b., 55i.
Judge Hawkins has jurisdiction OF the sub
,ect matter in which the relators stand COM
mitted, and any inquiry into these alters
over which he has cogniZance would be
usurping the powers of the Supreme Court.
If the commitment had resulted from pro-
ceedings over which the Superior District
Court had no jurisdiction it would be differ
ent. The relators can have no relief on the
ground of a want of jurisdiction in the Su-
perior District Court, unless it be granted
by court authorized to review and deter
mine. The doctrine cont ended for by re-
lators counsel would work great ilcou-
veniepce, unsettle the law and virtually
make the summary writ of habeas corpus
means of revising the solemn proceedings
of courts.
The suffieiency of the return to the writ
remain, to be considered. A commitment
must be sufficient. both in form and sub
stance, to deprive even felon OF his liberty.
The sheriff, on oath, states that ne detains
the relators by virtue of an order of COM
| mitment issued by Hon. Jacob Hawkins,
Judge of the Superior District Court for the
parish of Orleans, in these words:
State of Louisiana-Superior District Court
for the Parish of Orleans-No. 26, 623.
of Orleans:
You are hereby commanded in the name
| of the State of Louisiana and of the Supe-
rior District Court for the parish of Orleans,
to take into your custody the body of John
Larrieu and confine him in the Parish
Prison for the spaee'of ten days, and fine
of $50, for violating supplemental writ of
| injunction issued herein on the fifth day OF
July, A. d, 1875, not twithstanding the sup
Elemental writ Of prohibition issued by the
| Supreme Court and served upon him on the
second day of August, 1875, limiting and
annulling the writ of prohibition first OBJ
| tanned by said LRrrieu and served upon the
| Judge of this court and the Assistant Attor-
ney General OH the twenty third day of
July, 1875, and for continuously, persist
| emily and willfully abusing said second and
| supplemental writ of prohibition By slaugh-
| tering animals for other persons than him
| self, and for hire, and for speculative pur-
[ poses, and in q manner and to an extent
| beyond his business at the time he obtained
the writ of injunction in the suit between
him and the Crescent City Live Stock
Landing and Slsughtefhouse Company,
now pending in the Supreme Court, and in
| violation of the writ of Injunction herein
issued. JACOB HAWKINS, Judge.
New Orleans, August "a, 1875.
| This being the authority for OBTAINING
the relators, if sufficient, they must be re.
| turned to custody; if insufficient. they must
| be enlarged. The sufficiency of the return
must be tested by what appears in the re-
turn, and nothing outside or beyond 1t.
have already decided that l have nc. power
to examine into the proceedings OF the Su-