Morning journal and courier., 1883-06-19
A Habeas Corpus Case.

Hearing Before Judge Henry Stoddnrd-
 Mrs. McGnrty Admitted to Ball Pending
 the Decision of the Judge.
 Yesterday afternoon at o'clock Mrs. Mary McGarty was brought before His Honor Henry Stoddard, sitting as judge of the Superior court, on writ of AG6eas corpus. The writ was served by Constable Eascoe, who produced the woman in the Superior court room at the hour named. Mrs. McGar- ty was sent to jail few days ago by Judge Deming on charge of drunkenness and in- toxication, her sentence being for twenty days. At the time her attorney James I. Hayes, gave notice of appeal, but it was dis allowed by the court on the ground that there was no appeal under the statute in cases of drunkenness or intoxlcation. MT. Hayes then brought the writ of hG6eGs corpus which was heard yesterday.
 At the opening of the case the original in- formation on which the accused was tried was read by Mir. Hayes.
 MT. Doolittle said that he would submit to the reading, subject to objections that the judge in hearing this case could not go be- hind the mandamus on which the woman was committed to the county jail.
 Assistant City Attorney Lindsley was then called and testified that he remembered the
 
 that an appeal was asked for and refused. This was all the evidence in the case.
 MT. Hayes, in arguing the case, said that one reason why they asked for discharge was that the information was deficient She was convicted under the statute laws and sent to iail for drunkenness She says she is en- titled to the right of appeal the same as any other person convicted. He claimed that there was a difference between drunkenness and intexication and the laws of the State recognized this difference.
 Mr. Hayes said he did not believe that the State of Connecticut even intended to confer tEe power on the City court of New Haven to send & persoa to jail and keep them there for an offense of intoxication without giving such person a right to be tried by jury if they so desired. He read from the authorl- ties in support of this position and also from the charter and statutes to show that the right of appeal was permitted and allowed in cases, except (as suggested by Judge Stod- dard) in such cases as come within the sole jurisdiction of the City court. If his client was intoxicated simply and not drunk, he did not think any attorney would deny that she had the right to appeal. Tho information charges this woman with drunkenness and in- toxication and we say that If 1t was anything it was intoxication and not drunk enness and therefore she had the right of appeal. He asked the court if 1t found that the woman had been illegally confined with out an opportunity to give bail, then that she be discharged.
 State Attorney Doolittle took the ground that the court could not go back of the nit timus The mittimus says the person was committed for the crime for drunkenness, and the court could not go back of that nit timus. The mittimus shows a final judg ment from which there is no appeal under that charter. He read from a decision bJ Judge Ellsworth in the Supreme court where in he found that drunkenness and intoxica tion were one and the same thing. After further discussion the case was submitted tc Judge Stoddard.
 His Honor said that he was in some doub in regard to this matter and he desired { little time to consider before rendering hil decision. He said he would be in Hartford attending court the balance of the week. Pending his decision he had no doubt of hii power to take bail and he therefore ordered that Mrs. McGarty give bonds in the sum o $2Oo for her appearance before him on Mon day morning at 10 o'clock, when he would give his decision. Bonds wer furnished by l the husband of the woman and she was then | released from custody.