The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-05-10
THE HABEAS CORPUS CASE,
The Commitment of C. C. Haley Declared
Valid and the Accused Remanded.


Yesterday morning Judge Whitaker read the
following opinion in the case of the State ex
rel c. G. Haley vs.. the Criminal Sheriff:
Relator claims that he is Illegally imprisoned
on a commitment for contempt issued by the
recorder OF the First Recorders Court; that the
commitment does not sufficiently set forth the
nature of the charge against him: that If the
commitment be in due form 1t was issued with
out Just cause; that in a certain preliminary OK
animation before the said magistrate relator
was required to sign short hand notes of his
testimony. which he declined to do. although he
was willing to sign long hand transcript of the
same II 1t should be presented. and that for
such refusal he has been adjudged guilty OF
contempt and sentenced therefor.
| The return of the sheriff is in the usual form
and sets up the commitment as the cause Of de-
tention.
1t states that &C, G. Haley stands convicted be-
tore me of contempt of this court, and has
been sentenced therefor to Bay fine Of se
twenty-four hours now, therefore" etc. the
warrant of commitment need not set forth the
eontemp A Hnrd dn On Habeas CORPUS D. 10
Elk parte Nugent S. Iredell 149. In ex parte
summers Il Tenn. Law Journal. 1t was held
ment for contempt. and the court is not bound TO
set them out no other tribunal can reverse
their decision. Hurd on Habeas Corpus. D. 41o.
| Ii the court whose judgment Is assailed be
one of competent jurisdiction to render final
judgment of the character appearing. we are to
/ inquire whether the judgment as rendered is
| upon its face certain and definite in stating
what punishment the prisoner Is to suffer (43
Call 455lelSee also State VS.. Henderson. 2s A., a.
Johns. $40.
In this case it is clear that the court can ex-
anime no other points than the existence
validity and present legal force OF the process
under which the reator is held. This court is
not vested with revisory or corrective lurisdic-
ton over the recorders OF. the city OF New Or
! leans.
Two questions. then. are answered: First as
| to jurisdiction. and secondly. do to the form of
| the commitment.
When the jurisdiction Is undoubted and the
commitment is sufficient in form, and C pntans
all that the statute requires. the prisoner must
be remanded and the writ discharged. 30 Barb.
622 Hill l64 II How. $50: 8 Mclean 80; II Mo.
661 II How. AS; Id. 50: Abb. "a: Hill 1854; 4
| Barb 81 II Abb So Park Grim SIS: 9 Ohio
S.. II; Ashm. 10; 26 Pa st. g; A Mo. 1871; SIS
| Miss. 1888; Wheaton 43. IL Breese 266; Black
l66; j. J. Marsh 575 Charlton 1885, As to the
auth critics cited by counsel for relator in favor
| Of the right to go behind the commitment f r
contempt and inquire into the truth or snffi-
cheney of the facts adjudyed by the magistrate
they are decisions rendered in States where
/ these judgments may be reviewed under special
| authority conferred by statute
/ The mmitnent in this case sufficiently con-
| forms to the provisions Of section 1913. Revised
Statutes 1t substantially sets forth the nature
!! Of the 5G,nsen Of Whieh rslator IVES accused