Saint Mary's beacon., 1886-01-28
EIabeas Corpus Case.

The Habeas Corpus case ofJohn II. Bran
son, of the 9th district, was argued on Mon.
day last before Judge Crane by John n
Graves for the petitioner, BranSon, and
Danl. c. Hammctt for the State. The of,
fence charged aSains: RrlnsOn was that he
had violated the act Of 1880, CHI 20. which
provides that-"Any person who shall will
fully hinder or obstruct the free passage OF
persons passing by or along any public
street or highway in anv city or town in
this State, or who shal! H'ilfully disturb any
neighborhood in SlIch city or town by loud
and unsccmlT noises, or who shall prOiane-
ly cnEse and swear or use obscene language
upon oP near 10 such street or highway,
within the hearing Of perrons passing by
or along such highway, shall, upon convic-
ton thereof, be sentenced TO fine of not
less than one dollar and to the costs of his
or their prosecution, or to such fine and
costs and To imprisonment in Jail in the dis
cretion of the Court"
The traverscr having waived the right to
a jury trial, was finally tried before Justice
Geo. Z. Mattingly, adjudged guilty and sen,
fenced 10 pay fine of five dollars and the
sum of $l3.23 costs, which fine and costs he
refused 10 pay, and was committed until
said fine and costs should be paid, and then
the prisoner invoked the aid of the Habeas
Corpus act This case involved principal
ly the construction of the aforesaid act OF
Assembly, and the Court decided that, inas.
much as the Legislature had failed 10 des-
ignate what kind of town. was. meant, and
as persons differ materially as to what mum
bers Of houses and inhabitants constitute &
town, the only safe rule to adopt was to in.
fer that ii meant an incorporated town, and
as there was no evidence of the incorpora
ton Of Morganza, the place in this county
1T which the offence was committed, land
which place can boast of the finest church
in the county, two stores, two dwelling
houses, inhabited, and the usual outbuild
ings and a saw mill.) no offence had beer
committed under this law and the prisoner
was entitled TO his discharge
While we bow submissively to the ruling
Of the Court, We, nevertheless, think il ir
error on this point. a city is a corporate
town, and town is q collection of house:
and inhabitants not incorporated, and il
strikes Us that when town becomes incor
porated, although il may not cease to be 6
town, get it should be dignitied by the nam,
Of city and 50 called and treated in law
or, in other words, it is the act of incorpor
alton that distinguishes city from a town
and as the law above quoted says IAN,
town or city" We strongly incline TO th,
opinion that if Morganza had suficien
collection Of houses and inhabitants 10 con
stitute it a town, that the aforesaid act wa
violated, notwithstanding it was not incor
porated. But however this may be, III
fault lies with the Legislature in not max
ing the law clear and certain as TO its term:
and as our Junior is now a member of tha
august body, We trust he will remedy what
ever defects may exist in the law, and max
il 50 clear and comprehensive as TO give {
the sprightly and interesting little town
MorganZa that protection to which it is :
justly entitled.