The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1876-03-20
Habeas Corpus Hearing.

An interesting habeas corpus case was
heard before Hon. d. A. Smallcy, United
States district judge, on Tuesday, the 18th
inst, the facts of which are az follows
The habeas corpus was issued to Daniel
Crofut, sheriff of Bennington county, upon
the petition of Joel G. Haskins, confined
prisoner in the common jail of said county,
commanding said sheriff to have the body
of said Haskins before the district Judge,
and show the cause of his imprisonment.
Daniel Roberts, esq, appeared for the Pc
tiiioner and Henry A. Harmon and w. l..
Burnap, esq.,, tor the sheriff, and the credi-
tor.
The sheriff made retarn, in substance,
that one Peter Dooley, of the state of
Massachusetts, brought his action of tres
pass on the freehold against one Alfred
Haskins and the petitioner, returnable to
Bennington 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 at the December term,
1875, of said court, said Dooley recovered
| Judgment against both defendants, and
that, as to the petitioner, the court adjudg-
| ed that the cause of action arose from his
| wilful and malicious act and that he ought
| to be confined in close Jail therefor that
said term closed by adjournment on
the Goth December, 1875, and that an
execution issued thereon, dated Dec.
| 80, 1875, having endorsed thereon a GER
| tificate of such ADJUDICATION and
that by virtue of said execution, to him di-
rected he, on the 18th day of FebruarY,
| 1876 committed the petitioner to said Jail
and 80 held him. In answer TO such return,
the petitioner alleged that said Alfred Has
| ki0o nd bip,calf ri In, hpc
ness under the firm name of A. Haskins e.
Co., and that said trespass was committed
in the prosecution of their partnership
business; that the said Alfred Haskine,
being resident of the state of Massa-
chusetts, on the goth day of December,
1875, filed in the district court Of the United
States for the district of Massachusetts his
| petition in bankruptcy, as to said firm ;
and that on the 10th day of January
| 1876, said firm, and each member thereof
was duly adjudged bankrupt, and that
these bankrupt proceedings were still
pendiHg. All the foregoing facts being ad-
mittcd, it was claimed in behalf Of the
petitioner that he was imprisoned in viola
ton of a law of the United States Gu. S. r.
S. sec. 1853 viz: Bankrupt act, sec. 26, Gu.
8. r. S. sec. 5,l0O, which provides that
mo bankrupt shall be liable to arrest dur
| ing tnc penucncy Oh tne proceedings IN
bankruptcy in any civil action, unless the
same is founded on some debt or claim
from which his discharge in bankruptcy
would not release him'-and that lie was
entitled to be released under the 9th of
the general orders in bankruptcy, said
judgment beng claim provable in bank
ruptcy.
1t was admitted by the counsel for the
sheriff and creditor, that the claim was one
provable in bankruptcy, and that his die
charge in bankruptcy would release him
therefrom but they clsimed-Q) -that
the petitioner must be treated as imprison-
ed by virtue of his arrest upon the original
writ, and his giving of bail, and not by vir-
tue of the execution, and that therefore the
adjudication of bankruptcy did not reach
back so as to render the arrest and impris-
onment unlawful and to this point they
cited some decisions of Judge Lowell, Of
the United States district court of Massa-
chusetts = (2)-that the relief asked could
be granted only in the court where the
bankruptcy proceedings were pending, viz
the United States district court of Massa-
chusetts. These objections were overruled
by the judge, and the petitioner discharged,
and to go free without day.--Free Press.