The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1881-02-17
VOLUME Xiv.

journed SINE die without the transaction oil
any business, the presiding Judge being
moved TO this course upon the petition oil
the members of the bar and many promi-
nent citizens from different portions of the
county who represented that, owing to the
incessant and protraeted rains which had
prevailed for many days, there existed great
backwardness in gathering the crops, and
that the public interests would be promoted
by an omission to hold the court.
The relator who was at the time confined
in Jail under indictment for murder, by his
counsel objected TO the adjournment and de-
manded to be put upon his trial. The adj
journment was had despite his objections
He thereupon sued out this writ of habeas
corpus, demanding to be set at liberty.
The Chancellor refused to discharge him,
but admitted him to bail under proof as to
the circumstances of the killing, which ordi-
narily would not have entitled him to it.
4 Declining to give the requisite bond, re-
lator brings the case here and demands from
US to be set at liberty.
The constitution Of the State requires that
a circuit court shall be held in each county
at least twice in each year, a provision in
4 tended for the benefit of all litigants, but
especially for those deprived of their liberty
| under criminal accusations. The judge
/ who declines to carry out this constitutional
/ requirement when persons IN prison are de-
manding its benefit, assumes a very grave
responsibility and one which should never
/ be assumed save under such extraordinary
circumstances Of pestilence or other wide
spread and controlling public necessity as
renders it manifestly proper to subordinate
/ private right to the public welfare.
| A judge has no right upon such an issue
/ to consult the desires or interests of partic-
uIar classes of the community, so long as
there remains one person in custody who
Il a.. - faI hor Tfrtaf
the rights of the imprisoned to the mere
wishes of the entire community. There
must be some grave public necessity to
warrant the prolongation in confinement of
those who demand that speedy trial which
the constitution guarantees to the humblest
citizen.
That the learned judge in this instance
did not in declining to hold the court con-
suit his own ease or wishes, but acted in
obedience to his conscientious convictions
of what the public interests demanded, we
entertain 10 question. Whether the reasons
accepted by him were sufficien. to warrant
the action taken is not material to the
present inquiry, for, whether sufficient or in
sufficient, the relator has, we think, in being
admitted to bail, received every advantage
that he was entitled to demand
1t cannot be that an error Of judgment on
such a question upon the part of the judge
amounts to general Jail delivery and en-
titles all the criminals in confinement to be
set at liberty Such doctrine would en-
able an uncrupulous judge practically to
usurp the pardoning power, and give the
same effect to the omissions of an indolent
one.
The utmost effect Of refusal on the part
of Judge to afford prisoner a trial, when
demanded at the time appointed by law,
where no legal reason exists for continu
ance of the case, must be very greatly to
strengthen an application, on his part for
bail and this benefit relator received.
The English Habeas Corpus Act, which did
nOtcontempate the absolute discharge of per
sons availing themselves of it, but was pri-
marily intended only to ensure an Opportu
nifty to give BAIL contained provision that
in cases of treason and felony, which were
not by law bailable, the accused should be
discharged if not indicted at the first term
or tried at the second term after arrest, I'M
less it was made to appear that the crown
witnesses could not be produced. Hurd
on habeas corpus, Marg. p. 81.
Though our statute contains no such
provision, the practice here is to discharge
at the first term if no indictment be found
and no showing made for longer detention.
Whether we would discharge at the second
term after indictment found where the State
had twice failed without any legal showing
to bring the prisoner to trial, has not been
settled by adjudication, and we will not de-
eide until the case is presented to us.
order Of Chancellor affirmed.
Collins & Rosberry, for appellant.
I. @. Catchings, Attorney General, contra.