Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1878-06-22
A NOVEL CASE
Involving the Rights Of Citizenship
and the Question Of Imprisonment
on Presidents IsIand-The
Law Of the Matter.

Several days ago a Ease of unusual
importance, styled VIM. johnson vs..
Shelby county, was brought before Judge
j. E. R Ray for adjudication. The peti
toner alleges that be is illegally restrain.
ed Of his liberty in the Shelby county
work.house on Presidents Island. He
was convicted Of a fraudulent breach Of
trust at the late term Of the Bartlett
Circuit Court and sentenced to impris.
onment lin pursuance Of the verdict Of
the jury for thirty days at hard labor in
the work-house, and to further imprison-
ment at labor until he paid the costs OF
the prosecution.
His imprisonment has long since ex
pired, and he insists that he cannot be
legally held any longer to work out the
costa.
A distinction is ssught TO be drawn be.
tween the punishment in a felony (his
o%ffense being a felony and a misde.
meanor.
The act of 1878. followed by the act Of
1875, provide that all persons convicted
Of misdemeanors who fail to pay, or
satisfactorily secure the fine and costs
a~diudged against him or her, shall be
sentenced and confined 10 the county
work-house, after the term Of his impris.
onmeut, If any, has expired until be
work out his foe and costs, including all
%jailer's fees accruings down to final dis.
charge. The foregoing acts apply ex'
clusively to misdemeanors.
1t is insisted, however, that when a
party is liable to be imprisoned in the
work-house, whether for a felony or mis-
demeanor the work.house law applies
except as to %jsiler's fees, which ii is con
ceded should not be included, and b,
should not be held to work out these fees
To this construction Judge Ray cauno
assent.
By section 5232 OF the code it Is pro
vided that, I'm no case shall any person
convicted Of a felony be confined for q
less period than twelve months in tn,
penitentiary; provided, that whenever il
the opinion of the jury in any case tht
offence merits a less punishment thar
twelve months in the p~enitentiary, tina
then, in such case, the jury may punisI
by confinement 10 the county jail for sul
period Of time short Of twelve months.
1t was under this provision Of the Law
that the jury fixed the imprisonment a
thirty days, aud the court 10 entering uJ
the judgment, after sentencing him K
the thirty days Imprisonment, also re
Quirsd him to be further held until b,
worked out the costs. In this be thinks
the court erred, for 10 no felony case cal
a man, who is sent to the penitentiAry
be held beyond the period of inprison
ment assessed By the jury. In such
casesan execution issues, and if returneC
nulla bona, the costs are adjudgec
against the State. The Imprisonment i
the punishment, aud the costs are a deb
for which he cannot be held; whereas il
/, misdemeanor cases the fine and cost
imposed are the punishment for th,
offence, and upon his failure to pay O.
: secure the same, be is imprisoned in tb,
work.house until the same is paid.
Any other construction, it appears t
him, would work a hardship instead o
, favoring the convict, for in many in
stances to hold the party after the ex
i, piration Of his Imprisonment to worl
out the costs at twenty-five cent
J.. per day, would necessarily confue hin
more than twelve months, thereby defea.
the object of the Legislature ia allowing
the jury, if they are Of the same opin
ion, that the offence merits a less pun
ishment than twelve months in tn,
peuitentiary. They may fix it at an.
period under that in the couaty Jail.
g The above is the substance of the fact
as set forth in this habeas corpus pro
3 ceeding by Judge Ray who, in the con
%elusi0n Of bis opinion, said;
; 1t ia further insisted that a judgmen
Of a court of competent jurisdiction can
not be attacked in a collateral proceed
o ing. Therefore, ever admitting tht
|, Judgment 10 be erroneous, it cannot b.
taken advantage OF 10 this proceeding
> This is true as a general proposition, bu
a judgment may be valid in part and in
valid in part, and believing there is M
law to authorize the further detention g
the petitioner, SO much of the judgmen
as requiring him to be further held 70
costs is q nullity and confers no powe
l upon any one.
l am informed that this question ba
been recently determined by the Su
preme Court in accordance with tb.
views here expressed. but | have no al
thentic information to that effect, bu
believing the law to be as above stated,
I conclude the petitioner is illegally de
tanned, and therefore discharge him.