The Cecil Whig., 1881-06-11
Col. Maulsby's Habeas Corpus Case

WESTMINSTER. MD. june S-Chief JUS
tice Bartol arrived here this mornin" and
heard the habeaS corpus case of Col. Wm
=. MauiShY, "ho WAS fined for "miSbc-
havior in open conrt by Judge Hayden
on Monday. and committed to Jail until
the fine should be paid. Gen. Bradley
I. johnson appeared for the petitioner
and States Attorney d. \. IIennin4 rep
resented Judge Hayden. The case was
opened by Gen. Johnson fling IA traverse
to the judges order of commitment. in
which the petitioner denied that he was
delivered into the custody of said sheriff
and imprisoned under and in virtue of
sad order or Judgment annexed TO said
return. claiming that such Judgment had
been rendered during his absence and
while he was already Il prisoner in iail.
and calling for the particular acts or
words constituting the alleged misbr-
havior. IN other wugdS. the petitioner
claime;! that lie had been pertmptorily
ordered To pay Il tine of $40. ana to he
committed TO jail uutil it shall have beer.
paid. without being told why OF Ter what
otfense. and claimed 10 he unconscious
then and now OF having said or done any
thing calling for ur requiring such action.
Argument was heard on both sides.
aud the petitioner, Col. Mauishy and
les>r>. thaS. 7. iritsnlder, Jas. \. C..
Bond. Douglass Is. Smith. George VI.
Pcarce. and VIM. l.. Seahrouk. all attur-
iicyS ut this bar. were examined as to the
particular occurrences i'll court Just pre-
cedimg and during the court : action in!-
posing the tine. There Were some con
tlictihg statements on these points none
of the witnesses recollccting the exact
words used by the court at the time Il
appeared. however. that the court and
the petitioner misapprrhen!c;l each the
others meaning OF intention. Colonel
MauIsby was examining witness and
the issue between the court and him WAS
Us to whether or not Il certain question
had been answered. The coult claimed
that 1t had been answered frequentlv
whereupon Colonel MaulSby put another
question to the witness to suit. dS he SUD
posed, the ruling Of the court and to draw
out different testimony. but tho court
regarded the question different only i'll
form and as Intended to draw out the
same testimony, and Immediately Judged
him guilty of mIsbehavior in open court
and imposed the fine, &c.. noted above.
In giving an opinion Judge Bartol init
mated that he would not consider the
testimony produced, for it was not com
petcEt fur him to review in this case the
action of the circuit court tul Carroll
county. He proclaimed the power of
courts to in1lict summary punishment for
contempts committed in the presence of
the court; said it was the duty of courts
to maintain their dignity and order. and
that what constituted a contempt was a
matter resting solely within the breast of
the court. lie thereuppn denied the peti-
tion and remanded the petitioner ta the
custody Of the sheriff until the sestence
of the court shall have bceu obcyad.
After this decision was rendered, Col /
Maulsby said: There can be no posi- ,
bic combination of human circumstances
under which | will pay the fine, and am
ready for the custody of the sheriff. He /!
was then conducted back TO iail, where |
he had been since Monday afternoon.
Much interest was manifested in the pro |
ceedingS. and the court room vas filled |
during the entire hearing. Mrs. Maulshy !
and several ladies We're present, and many
representative men from all parts of the |
county: also VIM. +. Maulsby, Jr. of
Frederick. Later i'll the day a member
of Col Maulsby's family paid the fine |
and he was released from custody,