The daily herald. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1886-1887, 1886-12-24
LIBERTY OF THE PERSON
An Important Habeas Corpus Case

AN Important Habeas Corpus Case
mere came up for hearing before
His Honor the Chief Justice, in Supreme
Court Chambers yesterday afternoon.
an application by one ]. H. Congdon,
prisoner In the custody Of the Marshal
that writ Of habeas corpus be issued
dlscharging him from imprisonment
Quite an array Of counsel attended the
hearing. Messrs. Ashford & Ashford
having Messrs Neumann and Dareasso.
ciated with them, appeared for the
petitioner; Mr.. F. M. Hatch appearing
for the Marshal, respondent. The
petitioner was also present. respondent
having been ordered to produce him
IN Court. Following is the Marshal's
RETURN
John d. Kaulukou, Marshall of the
Hawaiian Islands, makes return of
the writ of habeas corpus addressed to
him as follows:
"Ist. He admits that he has said 7.
II. Congdon in his custody and pro
duces him here in Court.
"2nd. He justihes his arrest and
detention of said j. H. Congdon as fol
lows, and says: That writ command
ing the arrest of said J. H. Congdon
and detention until he should give
security, was issued from the Clerks
office of the Supreme Court under the
seal of said Court and placed in his
hands on the 22nd day December inst,
a copy Of which writ is hereunto an
nexed and made a part hereof; that
said writ was issued in civil suit
brought by H. Alderman against said
]. H. Congdon on the allegation that
said Congdon was about to quit this
Kingdom, and a bond filed in the
Clerks Office in compliance with an
order made in said suit by the Hon. L.
McCully, one of the Justices of the
Supreme Court; and that said writ
commanding the arrest Of said Cong
don was allowed by said Justice and
his allowance CT the same noted on
said writ.
Therefore he submits to such order
as the honorable Court shall make in
the premises.
"JoHN L. KAULUKoU,
"Marshal."
December 20, 1886.
After the reading of pleadings in the
case, counsel proceeded to argue The
points brought out in argument we're
numerous and the principles of law
suggested by counsel were important.
There were, of course, different con
structions of the law on habeas corpus
set out by counsel.
1t will be remembered that the petit
toner, being defendant in civil
suit now pending before the Supreme
Court, was arrested on the 2and inst,
on board the S. S. Australia, by order
of Justice McCully, until he should
give bond to secure the payment of a
debt claimed to be due one II. Acker-
man, captain of the barkentine Geo. c.
Perkins, for freight
Counsel for petitioner argued that
application for the warrant of arrest
was incomplete in that it did not allege
any debt due; that the allegation that
defendant was intending to depart
from the Kingdom, standing alone,
was insufficient to justify the arrest
and that the facts stated on behalf OF
Alderman should have been positive
and not merely on belief The form
Of the jurat and bond filed on his be
half, that he would respond in damages
in case he could not sustain his case,
was severely attacked by counsel fol
the petitioner. On behalf of the other
side suggestion was thrown out that q
writ of habeas corpus would, if granted
confound the prerogatives of the jus
tees, to wit; where one justice orders
the arrest and another grants the dis
charge, and it was argued by Mr.
Hatch that the better course would
have been to apply to the justice who
authorized the issuing Of warrant o.
arrest, to vacate the instrument.
The arguments of counsel through
out were forcible on both sides. Or
the prisoner stating that he was con
veniently provided for by the Marshal
His Honor said he would render hi
decision in the matter this afternoon
at one o'clock. The case is not only
one OF law but also of what SHOULD
have been the course of practice, and
as Mr.. Neumann said in the course o
his remarks, one that will establish the
mode of procedure in cases Of tina
nature in future.
|