Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1876-03-24


IN interesting habea- corpus ca'e was
heard before Hon D. A. Smalley. nited
States District Judge, on Tuesday, the l4th
inst. the facts Of which are as follows The
habeas corpus was issued to Daniel Crofut.
Sheriff OF Bennington county, upon the pc
tition Of Joel C. nsskins, confined a pris-
oner in the commo- - tssit county com
manding SAID sheriff .1 nave the body Of
said Haskins before the District Judge,
and show the e'r=e u ms Imprisonment.
Daniel Roberts, ESQ, appeared for the
petitioner and Henry Harmon and " L
Burnap, Esq. .1r the sheriff. and the
/ creditor
The Sheriff made return. a substance.
that one Peter Dooley.oi tai tate OF Mas-a-
chusetts, brought his action of trespass On
the free bold against one Alfred iaskns
ano the petitioner, retutnable to Benning
ton COUNTY Court, and that upon the
original writ The body of the petitioner
was attached. and that he gave bail thereon
to the officer that d the December term,
1875, of said Court, said Dooley recovered
Judgment against both defendants. and that,
rs u the petitioner. the Court adjudged that
the cause Of action arose from his wlltul
and malicious act and that he ought TO be
confined N close Jail therefor that said term
closed by adjournment on the 2Sth Dec,
1875, and that an execution issued thereon,
dated Dec 30, 1875. having endorsed there
on a certificate OF such adjudication and
that by virtue ci said execution, TO him d.
rected, be, on the nth day OF Feb, lS76,
committed the petitioner to said jail and so
held him. In answer TO such return, the
petitioner alleged that said Alfred Haskins
and himself were copartners in business
under the firm name OF 4. HaskiDs d Co.
and tha' said treSpass was committed IN the
prosecution Of their partnership business
that the said Alfred liaskins being a resident
OF the STATE Of Massachusetts. on the Both day
Of December, 1875 filed in the District Court
of the United States for the District o +
Massachusetts his petition in bankruptcy,
O. to said firm and that on the 18th Cay OF
January, 1876. said firm, and each member
thereof, was duly adjudged bankrupt, and
that these bankrupt proceedings were still
pending All the foregoing facts being ad
mi;ted. 1t was claimed in behalf Of the petit
TONER that he was imprisoned in violation
IT a law of the United States O.. 5. K. 5.
see. 753) VIZ Bankrupt act, sec. 26, u.
D K. ;. sec 5,iO7), which provides that
n bankrupt shall be liable to arrest dur
ing thep ondency OF the proceedings in bank
rGptcy in any evil action. unless the same
is founded on some debt or claim from
which his discharge in bankruptcy would
roJ release him''-and that ne was entitled
20 he released under the 9th of the general
orders IN bankruptcy, said judgment be-
ing clelia provable IN bankruptcy.
1t was admitted by the counsel Tor the |
sheriff and creditor. that the claim was ne
proyablc in bankruptcy, and that his dis
Charge IN bankruptcy would release him |
therttsym but they claimed-U)- the |
petitioner must be treated as imprisoned by |
virtue OF his arrest upon the original writ,
and his giving OF bail. and not by virtue OF |
the execution, and that therefore the adu- |
dicaton Il bankruptcy did not reach back |
go as . render the arrest and Imprisonment |
unlawful, and to this point they cited |
some decisions Of Judge Lowell, of the |
United States District Court of Massachu- |
setts -(2)-that the relief asked could be !
granted only in the court where the bank |
rnptey proceedings were pending, viz. the |
nited States District Court of Massachu- |
~otts. These objections were overruled by |
the Judge. and the petitioner was ordered |
to he discharged. and to 90 free with !
ont DAY