St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-12-14


Mrs. Blaisdell to an Asylum
She Was Found Insane BY the
Probate Judge on the Certifi-
cate of Two Examiners.
The supreme court yesterday handed
down decisions in five cases, among
which was that of Mrs. Maria j Blais-
dell,which has created SO much interest.
and of which brief review is here
given.
A writ of habeas corpus was issued
by the court commissioner OF Otter Tail
county to the sheriff of that county,
commanding that officer to bring Maria
j. Blaisdell, who was then in his GUS
tody. before him in order that inquiry
might be made into the cause of her de-
tention. The sheriff made return that
he held her in custody by virtue
of a warrant of the judge of pro-
bate of the county, ordering her to
be committed to the state hospital for
the insane. and produced the original
warrant. The supreme court has de-
cided that she Is sane, and, in cOnse-
quence, will be allowed to have her
liberty. This court holds that when a
warrant of commitment to an insane
asylum, issued under chapter IA OF the
Probate Code, shows OH its face that the
party alleged to be insane and commit
ted was so found by the probate judge
on the certificate of two examiners in
lunacy instead of finding of insanity
by jury, the warrant is void. and the
party is discharged from custody.
Following is the syllabus of the case:
State of Minnesota ex rel. Maria j. Blais-
dell, respondent, VS.. John S. Billings, sher-
If of Otter Tail county. appellant. Order
affirmed. VANDERBURGH. j.
Upon the return of writ of habeas
corpus by the officer in whose custody
the person required to be produced is
held, the petitioner may plead to the
same; and If he fails to do SO the case
must be determined upon the return,
and if 1t appears thereby that the party
is detained by virtue of warrant, the
question of the lawfulnesS of such de-
tentlon must depend upon the validity
of such warrant. But in such case the
officer can only Inquire whether the
process is void because of jurisdlctiOnal
defects.
Where warrant of commitment to
an insane asylum, issued under chapter
IA OF the Probate Code, shows on its
face that the party alleged to be insane
and ordered committed was so found by
the probate judge on the certificate and
recommendation Of 1.-TWO examiners in
lunacy," instead of finding of insan-
ity by the Jury after due examination,
as directed by the statute.
Held, that the warrant was void on its
face. and the party was properly dis
charged from custody.
The practice upon such examinations
considered.
The syllabi of the other opinions
handed down are as follows:
Jacob L. Schoch, respondent vs. Winona &
st. Peter Railroad Company, appellant.
Judgment affirmed. VANDERBURGH j.
An order granting or denying mo-
ton to change the place of trial may be
reviewed on appeal from the Judgment.
In an action against railroad COM
pany in this state, any county in which
1t has an office, agent or place of bus
mess is to be deemed the residence of
such company.
And the same rule applies, as respects
the residence of such corporations, on
applications to change the place of trial
IN cases appealed from Justices court to
the district court, as in actions brought
IN the laSt-named court.
c. Aultman & Company appellant VS.. John
a. Torrey, respondent. Judgment affirmed
VANDERBURGH, j.
A breach of warranty may be the SUBJ
Ject of counter claim or it may set up as
defense by way of recoupment in an &C
ton for the purchase price of property
sold with warranty.
The statute of limitations does not
run against the defendants right to in
terpose such defense. and such right
may be held to survive and continue as
long as the vendors right of action upon
the contract.
Albert Richardson ct al, copartners as Rich
ardson & Cate, respondents VS.. James Nc
Laughliu, sheriff of Pine county, defend
Order affirmed. VANDERBURGH, j.
Where a sheriff is sued in trespass,
after levy under attachment or eXecu-
ton upon property claimed by the
plaintiff in the suit. and upon the
sherifPs application, pursuant to Oh. &c,
sec. 155, q. S.. an order IS made direct
ing the Obligors.in an indemnity bond
executed to him under sec. 154. to be i'm
pleaded with him, it is not necessary for
the plaintiff to amend mis- complaint by
setting up facts showing the nature of
their liability, as indemnitors of the
sheriff. That is for the sheriff to do in
his answer. 1t is enough that they be
made parties, by the service of the
proper summons and notice, and they
may then plead to the plaintiffs COM
plant. and the answer of the defendant