Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-11-18
The Hanscle Habeas corpu. Case.

The writ OF habeas corpus issued Mon
day IN the case of Louis Hansche.. who i
serving a sentence of so days in the Count,
jail, having been convicted of vagrancy in
the Police Court, came up for hearing be.
fore Judge Mcfarland in the Superior
Court yesterday afternoon. Hansche was
represented by |. S. Brown, and the peonIe
by District Attorney Buckley and City
Attorney Anderson. The commitment was
read TO the Court.
| l. 5. Brown said that Hansche was con-
Vlcted on the 18th of August and was not
sentenced until the 18th, five days there
after. he claimed that the prisoner was
restrained of his liberty unlawfully. From
the face OF the commitment or the copv of
Judgment on file in the Court it was clearly
| apparent that the Judge of the lower Court
| mad exceeded his jurisdiction when he
sentenced the prisoner after the time linn
lied by law had elapsed. The Code ex
pressly says that judgment must be passed
within two days after the conviction. ex
cept at the request of the prisoner The
tlme IS limited to not more than two DAYS
or less than six hours, unless the defendant
WAVES time or requests a postponement
In this case judgment was passed five
days thereafter. Fhe Judge of the lower
Court had lost all power TO sentence him
at all. All that is before this Court is the
commitment, and the prisoner should not
longer be illegally detained in iail.
city Attorney Anderson said this raised
the question as to whether or not the de-
iendant waived time. The fact is. the de-
lendant asked time in order to prepare an
appeal case, and to file bill of exceptions.
Mr.. Brown objected to any such issue
pelhg brought IN at this time. All that was
DlfOrn NgYrr tvfrpu . ].
1t stated nothing of the kind
Mr.. Anderson-Tbe case is here TODAY
upon the action of a writ showing that de-
1endant Is held upon a lawful commitment
from the lower Court. While it does not
show the waving of time, that becomes an
issue, and the Court can hear the evidence
II 1t so desires. Defendant asked first for
tme to make motion for appeal. Again
he asked time i'll which TO file a bill of ex
cepuonS. 1t Is not necessary that the com
mitment should SO state. 1t is not necps-
Sary that 1t should outline history of the
case. All poStpOnementS We're made on
defendants motion, and for his benefit.
Those, briefly stated, are the facts of the
case, as the Court records will show.
Mr.. Brown-Be that as it may, we have
only the commitment to deal with. and
that is fatally defective. If from that docu-
ment it appears that the committing judge
exceeded his authority, the prisoner is en-
titled to his discharge.
District Attorney Buckley agreed with
Mr.. Anderson. The record spoken OF by
Mr.. Brown would be merely superauous If |
written in the commitment.
Mr. Brown-It is necessary to show iuris- |
dlctlon or loss of it. His commitment |
shows on the face of it that there was no |
jurisdiction.
The Court-You admit that after his |
conviction defendant asked that the iude- |
ment be postponed upon his own motion. |
Having got the Court 10 do that, to favor |
him, you come here and ask his discharge |
because those facts are not mentioned in /
the commitment. 1t appears that YOU adj
INIT he was rightfully convicted, but want
his discharge on mere technicality. The
commitment is simply copy of the iudg-
ment. The judgment is just deterlnin-
alton Of punishment I don't think the
omission spoken of vitiates it. Judgments
cannot be upset by such mere omissions
from paper.
Mr.. Brown Cinterrupting) - There is
nothing in that commitment to show that
the pospOnement was had at the request of
the defendant
The Cortland you object to counsel
for the people showing that it was.
Mr.. Brown-That is not an issue before
you and is not in evidence.
The Court-Enter an order that the
prisoner be remanded to the custody of the
Sheriff