The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-07-30
AARON JACOBS CASE.

In the OF the motion made few days
since IN Supreme Court, Chambers, for the dis
charge OF Aaron Jacobs from a commitment for
contempt by the Superior Court, the particulars
OF which were published In the HERALD at the
time, decision was given yesterday. The i'm
portant eature IN the opinion embodying the de-
cision ia the citation OF Tweeds case as a prece-
dent Jacobs was committed December, 1874, Tor
thirty days and until he should pay fine of
g, 4TO for the contempt. On the habeas corpus
proceedings the REALTORS discharge was asked Tor
upon the ground that the punishment inflicted
was In excess OF the power OF the Court, and this
was opposed on the ground that the prisoner was
held for a contempt specially charged in the COM
mitment
Alter recitlng the facts OF the case Judge West
brook says the plain words OF the statute that
at shall be the duty OF such ofcer, before whom
the writ ia returnable, TO remand the party If 1t
appears he is detained in custody either by final
Judgment or decree or a civil or criminal court
OF competent Jurisdiction, or OF any execution
Issued upon such judgment or decree, or any
contempt specially ana plainly charged In the
commitment" He also cites section same
statute, orbiddIng such ofhcer Uudge) 10 inquire
into he legality OF any Judgment specified in the
foregoing section, or into the justice OF any COM
mltment for a contempt charged in such commit
ment. He then says further on lin obedience
TO the plain language or our statutes, as sup
NJ, and People ex rel Tweed VS.. Liscomb QO
N. Y, 81, concurred IN holding that neither 'tne
Justice nor propriety OF any commitment for con-
Tempt or The Legality and justice OF any judg-
ment' OF a competent court, could be questioned
In proceeding OF this character. My
own views OF these statutes are July given in the
cases to which l have referred. ana II should
follow tne inclination OF my own Judgment |
should hold unless section SO regulates the con-
duct OF the Court wnere the party l. held by
civil process apphes) that there Is no power In
this Court 10 review tne action OF the Superior
Court III this matter. Nv own convictions can
not, however, prevail. / understand the Court of
Appeals TO nave recently held In tae Tweed case
that when the judgment under which the party is
held Is in excess OF the power OF the Court to
award ii Is remediaele DY tnls WRIT Judge
Court holds IL has power TO pronounce the Judg-
ment the party need not revert 10 writ OF error,
but take out habeas corpus, aud II the Court
(possbly a county Judge or a special county
prisoner must be discharged Following our
Court OF derSlter resort, II am constrained"
saws Judge Westbrook, 'to override the OBJ lection
founded upon our Habeas Corpus act ana
anime into the power or me superior Court 10
make the order COM planned or lie then says
the commitment was until the relator pays 81 400,
including the amount OF real estate sold contrary
TO the mandate Of the Superior court. $3.50 costs
OF the contempt proceedings ana $3.50 counsel
fees. The total Tor which he is committed cannot
be separated, out Is good or bad as a whole. The
Court OF Appeals, in Sudlow VS.. Knox q ADbott,
ceedings are fixed oy statute, ana not those
called 'counsel fees" IL is questionable whether
the $3.50 ''costs" does not include objectionable
items. this being a case TO punish for contempt.
However, IL IN clear that she $3.50 counsel fees IL
Euca a charge as the decision OF the Court Of APP
1ne Iega! and me prisoner is entitled to be
DISCHARGED.