, 1892-03-03
PERMSTICK,S CASE.
THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN
PIERCE COUNTY.

xxrE,, Hp,,.,44, l.,
= - A-A = AoA> w 'aS AAAA - ho" 80 AAAS
Discharge From Jail, and Could
mOt re EFayd ~ ActtOw rs tba So
peFl0F C0uFG jury
rNotica All 5aois7ons ~ ~ ,o, l
~ ~ 0ilie
cou1b WILL appear IN HE DAILY AND
WEEKLY TRIBUNE.l
Tn re- leonard Parmstictr We Sborif Of
Pierce county - +
The netitionnr IL oopf,,ad !, ~ III
Pierce county nndar coron,i+T,enf JSt!t ef ~ ~
superior colrt which ranitas tha+ II 4 ~ ~
case of tbe State Tocle ne+itiSs,o1 -
the con1nlsiniI7o, y,1i+,3oSe tt ~ 80. ~ lS
inc Locke had ra+,1rrnd' +[a fali5Jrr; - !
their verdict viz. s.Ua tba iIru "Air9 +ae t'o
above entitled cause do And the 5afa1o'lt "a
C4anrge Tnclyn MAJ yp7It11 a51d ~ ftIla"
find that the comnIainino ptitnass i, y ~ ~
cause is Leonard Pernstiez and tbat tt H.
complaint was maIicinusIv and Y1i+i, ~ ~
DrohahIe ca11sa y ana tFat tbo,o'1,on 80 ~
Iudoment was an+arod IIror +ba 1rdPI,C7iot =
that the petitionernav the costs of III +ioI
S27585 and Ia sfap6 commifted A. az ~
of tba county 17,,tiI ,,a1,r,o,,t " ~ Ji
We are If tha -oni411i9n thatthis i,,dcr, a,,+
was void and tbat natitioo, T. e,e+;tI -
his discharge The indomant ia i,,stitieS Sjf ~
bv referanea tn Soc o9n9 nodo ~ 1oo1 .
but an insnection If that secfion daos 80 Tat
bear out the claim asserted nnder ' # ne NE
provision there made il anniicabIa nnlI " to
eases If examinotions bfnra "
maqistrates etcbaIga y q
and Al ara smoker ~ I.hilh
do not appIv- in the sense intanded ~ 80 ~
indictment or an inforr,at;o,9' W o'1a -
the proceedings thereuncer II 4 trn,o II
a s'iudgment Or verdict, are mentioned IN
which il shall he dasionated WHO ia +ba
compIainant hut IA tbe seI,aa cIa7,s - y
peace. or other magistrate', shall dao;do
Whether the eomnIaint yTas fri1ToIcI1sS ~
malicious: none Of these r9aoistrates fnd
yerdicts and we n,nst snnnosa az ~
the term to have been AZ insdvartaT9co IN =
Perhaps better reason hove11n1 ~ ~ e. ~
is that section os6 vas pvi1entIv ;ntanIoJI n19SI
by the LEGISLATURE to cover ali criminal 20 90
triable by Jury. and two things are at once
observed Al narke1Iv nrnn1fran+ II +bot
section. First that The court 1I,,o7, ST
ure of the prosecution is to he satisfad
from all the circumstances. thai the action
of the comnlainant was ma Iicions or
out probable cause. Second that inonris-
onment until the costs are naifl il not . Tla,,+
of the Judgment there. nermitfed F''-0
The iury in all criminal caens a,,o II, 4l,o
box for Inf one nurn0sa vi1 M 80
whether or not the accused is oniltv. on9
in this state that fact is emnb9sized' Nv o
statute (S6C.. ll l(l31 which nrASpI'ib hos a form
of verdict COVERING bnt one a1ternati+,al 20
which thew must decide. =
We do not find H necessary II nass 7,ron
two constitutional Questions Taise5 3' i,pun bpra
viz. Whether the petitioner had dine 11ro, y,
cess Of law. and whether he II innrisone9 rfs IlS
for debt. Tbey will he interasting -1Ui,er, Dbe,1
occasion arises recurring tbeir discsnssinn @irTli
The petitioner Is not estonnad IL T9a;.
tain this proceeding hv fhe fact that ait''ilt he
might have appealed from the ipdon,anf DOR nj
AGAINST him TIE writ IF habeasJ coTn1ls IL
allowable in cases where the conf w1bicb Viii
which rendered The 1ndement mndar. m1lfeh
the person is held was not 4 conrt If com
petent iurisdiction. or the nartv NAV On.
peal if lie sees 1T. - =
It was suggested that the oase,Tn r.
Rafferty,, / Wash. 382 had some % hearine 70
upon tRis point. But is NOT So In thee t,e
Rafferty, case it was songbt to have this
court inquire into and nass mon this olaae Itlse
ton whether tile superior co1irt had i2ris-
diction of tie petitioners nerson tbat is
whether its proceedings We're reonIaT' ar
nothing Of which was disclosed he tha
Judgment or could be eno11ired info N
habeas corpus. So. in the I,ybarger rG case Sc
tie QUESTION Whether VI a 1a tie proes &c bT p4n in
formation was a lawful mode of obtainino