National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1885-10-13
noNDs THAT DO NOT BIND.
A Judgment Debtor Arrested on n
Capins UnbaiIabIe.


An opinion handed down from the bench In
the court In general term yesterday shows that
parties hereafter arrested on writ of salts.
faciCndum cannot be admitted to bail. but
viii have to 20 tojnil aud remain until the writ
has been satisfied. Mcssrs. Wallace, Elliott "
Co. aud Howell, in the summer Of 1881, ob.
tanned Judgment against Francis PROFIT "for
goods sold aud delivered" Being informed
that Prott was disposing of his property with
The intention of removing from the city, writ
iot capias nd satisiaciondum was sued out, an
PROT was arrested and committed TO Jail. H.
was aiterward brought ont on writ OF hnbeas
corpus and released ON bail to appear ut tho
October term the court, although II was con.
tended that the case was not u blilablc one,
and jeremiah aud John Quinn became
surety for him In the sum OF $1,000. When
called III court Prot failed tn nppc lr the
bond was forfeited, and sclrc fac rs. was Is.
sued. Motion was made TO set aside these on
the ground that the recOgnl2lnCU was without
authority In law aud swho.ly void, aud FIR
nlhcr reasons, but the motion was override |.
Inc bOndsnirn then dcmnrrcd to the writ on
the ground of want OF suilccncy, and this was
sustained, and the scirc facias quashed. From
this decision nm appeal was taken.
Justice James, in the court In general term
yesterday, delivered the opinion OF the court,
approving the judgment below. Tho court
held also TINT the section which provides Tor
the capias did not concentrate any dischtrye
Ola Judgment debtor from the actual custody
under the capnis. except as the consequence OF
that inquiry, and that Il release on bail is no
tually inconsistent with their intended opor.
ntion.
The legislature, having abolished imprison.
ment for debt, provided Imprisonment
OF Judgment debtor for fraud, IN
TsovS OF OF bpGp TDpsy or ho,
means of satisfying the Judgment which re.
NAMED to the Judgment creditor. This i'm.
pTisonncnt was provided, not asa punishment
Of the fraud, inasmuch rs the defendant may
discharge himself Immediately by payment
but as remedy to defeat its operation by hold.
lug him until he Is ready TO undo II by sltlG-
faction of the Judgment which he sou ght to
defeat. II was provided rs n protection OF tho
process OF the law against frauds Intended to
defeat that process.
one of the causes for suing ont clpla, al
satis'aciendum was that the Judgment debtor
was about to remove his property from the
District, and that this remedy was allowed in
order among other things, to prevent him
from doing so. If he might b. released on
bail while an Inquiry into the truth of the
charge was pending he was allowed an oppOr.
tunty 10 consummate the very fraud In defeat
OF execution which the statute intended
TO prevent The court was satisfied that the
statute left no room for the implication of any
authority to take bail in these cases
After reaching this conclusion II was not Goa
sidered important to discuss the sullcIonCy of
the proceedings had In taking and FORGETTING
the rccogniznncc, or of the scirc flclas, further
than to say that, even if bail had been comps-
tent, this particular obligation was incorrectly
forfeited, and that the sore faclas failed to
show n breach OF all of It's conditions. Mr..
Prott. at the time Of the forfeiture OF his rccog-
nznnCe. had LEFT the city, and has since re-
maincd away. In the face Of this decision he
is not likely to return until compromise Is
effected with his creditors