The Russellville Democrat., 1891-09-17
The Mart Hunter Case.

| evidence disclosed that he had or dered half gallon of llquor iron some liquor dealer in Ft. Smitl which vas forwarded to hlm by ex press. After the liquor had reach ed it's destination and was lying il the express office at this place Ton Collier paid him the cost and ex press charges of the liquor and gay' Collier an order to the express agen for the liquor. Upcn this testimon, he was convicted, fined $200, de faulted in payment, and was deliver ed by Sheriff Johnson to J. H. Hea ley, County Contractor, or the sup posed county contractor, to be held and worked by sad Healey until he l discharged the fine and costs by la Dor as required by law. Hunter was accordingly imprisoned and held to labor for the rise of five months when he sued out Q writ oi habeas corpus before Judge Wal lace of the Pope circuit court to be discharged on the ground that Hea ley was not under contract with the county court of said county to keeL and work county convicts and that he was detained and restrained ol his liberty without authority ot law 1 Healey's response was that he held said Hunter by order and direction of the County Judge of Pops county predicated upon the aforesaid judge. ment of conviction of the Pope cir cult court and that Hunter had not vet discharged the fine or costs, and that he had executed his bond as re- quired by act of the legislature ap proved March 10, 1877. The bond offered in evidence by respondent did not provide when it should take effect or when it should expire. It was executed June ,, 1890, and in the penalty of Sl,000, prescribed no term or duration of time that it should run. The evidence fu,ther showed that the bond was not predi cated upon any contract with the county court, but was taken by the County Judge Tn vacation in contem plation of contract to be entered into with said Healey oy the county court in the future, but that such contemplated cor tract was never ex- ecuted, the sad Healey after the ex- ecution of said bond refused to en- ter into any contract with the coun. ty court to keep and work the coun- tv convicts unless the county court incorporate a provision in the con- tract authorizing him to keep and appropriate such of the fines of said conyicts as might be paid by them or their friends after they had been committed 10 him. This the county court refused to do. Bnt the Coun ty Judge anxious to avoid entailing expense to the county, as parties were convicted of misdemeanors and lodged in jail, supposing said bond to be sufficient to protect the interest of the county, instructed the Sheriff to deliver said county prisoners to sad Healey, and under this arrange ment the Sheriff delivered the peti tioner, Hunter, to the said Healey. There was no consideration for the bond and the only consideration paid by Healey was to pay the or ficers and witnesses the cost of con yiction. It was insisted upon by the attorney who represented res pondent HeaIey, that the bond was good under the act of March 10, 1877 and imparted legal authority to the said Healey to keep aLd work the county prisoners.
 The judge was inclined to the opinion that the act of 1877 was re pealed by the acts of 1881 and amendatory act of 1883, but did not deem it necessary to decide that question as the bond was not sui ficient under any of said acts, hold ing that the bond was void, q for uncertainty; CD that it was not predicated upon any contract with the county court; (3) that it was not based upon any contract exist ing at the time or to subsequent ex ecution of the bond; (4 that if II could have ever had any validity il had been abandoned by said Healey refusing to enter into contract with the county court as contemplated al the date of execution, and held that the custody of said Healey of said Hunter was without any legal au thority, and discharged the prisoner under section 3572 of Mansfie!ds Digest which reads as follows:
 "If it appear that the prisoner is in custody by virtue of process is sued from any court legally eonsti tuted, or issued by any officer in the exercise of judicial proceedings be fore him, such prisioner can only b, discharged in one of the following cases; First: where the jurisdic tion of such court or officer has been exceeded either as to matter, place sum or substance; second; Where though the original Imprisonment was lawful, yet by some act, omis sion or event which has taken place afterward, the party has become en titled to hIs discharge; third wher' process IS defective in some matte or substance required by law, ren dering such process void; fourth
 where the process, though in prope | form, has been issued in case o under circumstances not authorized by law"
 Attorney for respondent thel moved to have the prisoner remand ed to the custody of the Sheriff, bu the Judge said that under the fore going provisions of the statute tha