Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1884-07-16
In Court on a Habeas.
JUDGE RAGNER SAYS PROFIT rs NOT IMPRISONED FOL
DEBT-RRQTT REAANpKp TO IAu.


DEBT-PRoTT EAANDKD TO JAIL
Yesterday afternoon MeSsrS II. o. Claughton, L
G Hlne and Leon Tobriner nled an application for
writ OF haoeas corpus In the Francis Prott,
who was committed TO jail saturday last on
cdpfds dd SatfSfactendunl Judge Hagner granted
the writ and made it returnable at II O'Clock to
day This morning Mr.. Prott was produced in the
Circuit Court by Gen Crocker, the warden OF the
JAIL MeSsrS Cook Cole and W. F. Mattingly ap
peared for the Plaintiffs who had obtained judg-
capiaS The case excited considerable interest and
there were present number OF business men and
members OF the bar
MIR. Hine said that they questioned the right for
the marshal to commit on such writ, and that the
writ was improperly issued; that there right
TO arrest the petitioner.
Ior the Issue OF writ Of habeas corpus in these
cases, und which the plaintiffs must show cause
why the defendant be not discharged There was
out Ole thing for them to do and that Was TO give
notice to the other side to show cause why Profit
Should not be discharged.
broad ground independent Of the imprison-
ment, and upon such notice either party may de-
Maho i trlal by jury, and thereupon the court or
upon the afidavit so filed, and shall cause jury TO
oe impaneed and sworn 10 Try such issue or issues
81 oe ea to
prison. Mir. Claughton said that they made the
broad proposition that
An OUTRAGE HAD BEEN COMMITTED,
oAO tudl, luQtpcuueuL VI IOo lQe pIlSOUSE
Should be discharged.
Mr.. Mattingly called attention to the averment OF
statute.
The court, after reading the petition said "this
relic OF barbariSm existed In nearly II not every
state In the Union
Mr.. Claughton said If Imprisonment for debt ex-
lStS ID the District 1t exists no where else.
NOT IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.
Judge Hagner.-This is not Imprisonment for
debt
Mr.. Claughton.-We show that 1t Is
The court referred to the case OF Smith, where
the proceedings were under the act above quoted.
In this case the petition for the writ OF habeas cor
pus did not cite the act. This had been the prac-
uce, and he should follow 1t.
Mr.. Claughton said the court had decided on the
statute, but they did not ask anything unds r the
statute; they had demurred to the return.
. The court said they must proceed under the terms
OF the statute.
Mr.. Claughton asked If the court would make an
order refusing to discharge the petitioner that they
might appeal
The court said that the next move should be for
petitioner to serve notice on defendants to show
cause why he should not be discharged.
Mr.. Mattingly said the petitioner was here under
the writ, and the counsel for the petitioner not
having availed themselves Of the way pointed out
be should be remanded.
Mr.. Tobriner and Mr. Hine claimed that the plain
tins had not put themselves within the purview OF
the statute.
THE PRISONER RENANDED.
The Court-The prisoner Is remanded.
Mr.. Hine-We can give bail.
The court said the marshal might take bail.
Mr.. Cole questioned whether bail could be given
at this stage.
After short recess Mr.. Tobriner presented a
formal motion for the discharge OF the petitioner
the ground that the writ Of capidS was not based
on sufficient grounds The court refused to enter
tain the motion
Mr.. Hlne said that Prott was prepared to give
100000 bail and to take an appeal
Inc court said he would not change his ruling,
q tim ad
After some further discussion an attempt was
made to give notice to show cause 20 the plaintiffs
but they refuse to accept it. and the court made
order dismissing the writ and remanding the peti-
toner.