The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1866-1891, 1878-01-01

Court las general jurisdiction OF th'
subject an erroneous judgment is VOID
able. If the Court has not such Jurls'
die ion. its judgn cnt il VOID. where
a cnxrt Of record has jurisdiction OF the
>ubjoc, matIr and the party, ITS JudS'
nrn,. though errun"nus. must stand un'
III r"seindcd by the proper tribunal,
\ is ord"r must avail until ro'
volsea in the mode provided by law,
which under our practice Is by appeal.
In re. Stokes, V Rich, y. 5. 5 g.
Reps. p. II; TX parlc Watkins, 3 Pe'
tiers, 2G6; Elliott IS. Prescott. | Peters,
$40.
In Brennan and Ga!en's case it was
submitted that the Imprisonment was by
virtue Of Il sentence contrary to law.
Lord Denman. G. j., said: I'VE think.
however, that the cour, having compn-
tent jurisdiction TO try and punish an
offence, and the sentence being unre-
versed. we cannot assume that it is in
valid or not warranted By law, or re-
quire the authority of the court to pass
the sentence to bc set ont BY the saoler
upon the return. We arc bound to as.
sumo pr;ma lacic that the unreycrsed
sentence of court Of competent Jurls-
d;ction is correct; otherwise we should
in effect, be constituting ourselves a
court of appeal without power to re-
verse the judgment" 90 +. {. j., P.
1872.
In Bethel's case, at was held per
cur, that that the commitment was
naught; 1st, because it was not the
sheriff who is the legal and Immediate
officer to every court Of oyer dad t"r'"t-
ner; I'd, because the word committisur
is necessary to form legal commitment,
Then the question was whether he could
be discharged, and it was said, l." here
a commitment was without cause, n
prisoner may be delivered by habeas
corpus bu; where there appears to be
good cause and defect only in the form
of the commitment, as in this case, he
ought not to be discharged" And as
to the other matter they said, THAT,
though the commitment ought in strict
ness ought to be to the sheriff, yet a
iailcr is n known officer 10 law, and his
custody j, the custody Of the sheriff to
many PURPOSES; therefore let him bring
his writ o. error, for we will not dis
charge him on the habeas corpus ]
S.lkelj, 34S.
Tie petitioner claims that his sen-
tence should have been confinement in
the county Jail and not in the penlten'
,inrv. The same reasoning applies as in
Bethnells case.
The cases Rex. VS.. Ellis, 5 Barn ard
Crcs.. 395. and Hex. VS.. Boarnc, Z Ad.
and Ellis, SO, wcr. carried up BY writ
Of error, and are pot applicable. The
other cases relied on were decided, and
the prisoner discharged, either upon the
ground that the court had not originally
jurls liction OF the case, or as IN the
case ex partc Lange, IS Wallace, lG3,
aud the Tweed case, or as in the case,
60 n. Y, p 500, where the sentence
had been passed and executed, and the
court passed second sentcncc under
the same verdict; on the ground that
the power of the court was exhausted.
and that its second sentence was null
and void. 1t is unnecessary to con-
slider the case Of De Hay, 3 Rich. S. c.
Reps p. 5G4, as the principle upon
which this decision rests is not conc.u-
ded by that ease.
The motion to discharge The prisoner
is refused.
Willard, c. j., and Mclyer, a. j.
concur.