The Saint Paul globe., 1897-06-09
SUPRE--E COURT SAYS THAT THE
EX-MENISTER Is LEGALLY I'M
PRaSONED.
HIS SENTENCE IRREGULAR.
THE IRRE}:Ui itARIrY.- HOWEVER
WAS NOT5S0ssH AS TO RENDER
.ukIPFVOID.
vx1ny % -.
His Release the Court Suggests, But
Not the Writ of Habeas Cor
pas asked For.

Derect1Ve as his sentence was, the Su-
preme court holds Justice Canty sign
Ing the opiniop.o that Rev. James c.
HULL the ex-pastor, is still properly
held within the confines of the Still
water prison, and that, while writ of
error subsequent to- the defective SEN
tence might have resulted, and no
doubt would have in his being remand
ed for resentence, his release cannot
be effected by writ of habeas corpus.
The syllabus of the supreme court
decision handed down yesterday is as
State. ex rel. j.. C. Hull petitioner, VS..
Henry Wolfer, warden of penitentiary, re-
spondent.
Section 1902, General Statutes 1894 pro-
ViGeS:
''In every case in which punishment in
the state prison is awarded against any con-
Wet, the form CT the sentence shall be-, that
ne be punished bypconfinement at hard labor.
Ihe relator was duly indicted, pleaded guilty
and was sentenced as follows: THE sentence
OF this court is that you, James G. Hull, be
connned. and restrained in the state prison
at saltwater, cenformable to the rules and
regulations of that institution. in the state of
Minnesota, for the period of six years"
l.. Held, the Judgment of the court is de-
fective and irregular in omitting to SEN
| tence relator to hard labor, but is not alb
soiutely void and cannot be impeached col
ldIerally on habedSt. corpus.
z. Held further, such judgment is merely
defective IN form, not in substance, sec
tIon 1892 and following sections provide that
every person convicted and sentenced to the
state prison shall be compelled to perform
! reasonable amount of hard labor. and the
sentence provides that relator shall be con-
t fined in such prison conformable to such
rules and regulations.
Writ discharged and relator remanded.
In the opinion accompanying, Justice Canty
writes:
Relator is confined in the state prison and
has sued out writ OF habeas corpus under
that he is wrongfuily deprived of his liberty.
He is charged by the indictment with the
crime Of assault ini the third degree. In the
midst of the trial he changed his plea to
guilty, and thereupon was sentenced as fol-
lows:
''The sentence lof the court is that you,
James G. Hull, be confined and restrained IN
the state prison at Saltwater, confornlable to
the rules and regulations of that institution,
in the state of Minnesota, for the period of
six years.
1t is claimed that this sentence is Illegal
I and void because he was not sentenced to
! hard labor as required by section 1902, Gen
t eral Statutes 1884. ...-.,,, q,
/ :, This, sentence Is clearly defective and ir-
| regular. The Judgment does not comply
with the statute, and, undoubtedly, on
| writ of error it would be reversed and the
case remanded for new sentence. But
/ less the Judgment is absolutely void, 1t can
not be impeached collaterally on habeas cor
puS. ,i.1 1s-s,...-. 80 81
In our opinion the judgment is merely
irregular, and not absolutely void. The pro-
ceeding was In court Of general jurisdic
tion of the parties and the subject matter,
from the sentence did not Dust the court of
Jurisdiction. In each Of the cases cited the
writ was raised ;on a writ of error
The supreme court here refers to the Will
Jams case a Minnesota case in which the
prisoner was sentenced to Hfteen months,
when the minimum penalty under, the law
| was i've years. Here it was held the, judg
ment was not Yoid,- although irregular.
The court continues:
The objection to the sentence in this case
is that the relator has not been sentenced to
Eas much punishment as the law requires.
b ButfieEen9 where the punishment imposed by
E{the sentence of court of general jurisdic-
I ton is. in excess of that allowed by. 1.-The
statute, it has been held that the judgment
is not absolutely void but at most void
only as to the excess. But this is not the
rule where the jurisdiction of the court is
limited, and the punishment imposed is in
excess of such jurisdiction. In such case
the whole judgment is void. State VS.. West,
A. Minnesota, 149.
While the Judgment before us is erroneous,
1t is clearly not VOID.
But we are of the opinion that this SEN
tence is. merely defective in form, and not
in substance. 1t adjudges that the reIator
shall be confined in the state prison, "con-
formable to the rnfes and regulations of that
institution Some sof these rules and regu-
lations prescribed by the following sec
"Sec. 1892. Every person convicted of crime
I and committed to the state prison shall be
regularly employed 'at and be compelled to
+ perform reasonable amount of hard labor in
some industrial employment and person
so committed as aforesaid shall be exempt
from such labor and employment except un-
less account of incapacitating sickness
other disability rendering it impossible that
such labor be performed
''Sec. 1853. The employment of convicts in
the state prison shall in all repects be gov
I Shall be conducted as specified in the sue
i-ceeding sections hereof
- The succeeding sections provide in detail
the systems of employment and many regula-,
ftions for governing such employment.
Then we are Of the opinion that the re2ator
has in fact been sentenced to hard labor
though the judgmefzt4is not in the form pre-
scribed by the aTaSute. The writ will be
discharged the relator remanded to the Gus
tody of the respondent, So ordered, -
The court haAtdea down half dozen other
decisions, half, sof which were reversals of
the I'd decisions of the lower courts The
G.. W.1Abrahafnseh, respondent, vs. Z. Lam
berson G George g. Winchester appellants.
1: In an. ,actienstried by the court without
a jury. a fndingf OF fact: that ali the ma
terial allegati9Rs Gpn5ained l5aI in the complaint
ment for plaihtiff.. So '''
q AS a general rule, where the vendor of
land on an eNegntory contract, wrongfully
keeps the vendee squt Of possession the lat
ter. is. entitle1a TO recover damages for the
withholding 0f the premises from him. or
So kept out @ opssssion U and if he s does ne res IS
cover any such damages, the vendor is en-
titled to @recov sf interest on the unpaid pur-
!. chase money for ethe same time.
Where in a former action. the court award
ed such damages, but set off the same against
the vendors claim for Improvements made
while so wrongfully in possession
Held. although the vendor had no right to
claim for such improvements. the vendee's
claim for such damages is res adiudicata.
and he cannot now recoup the same against
the vendors claim for such interest
Where in an action for the recovery of
possession of land damages are awarded for
the Withholding of the same such DANA ges
should be assessed UP to the time of. trial.
and such damages up to such time are res
adjudcata and merged in the judgment in
the former action.
Held, the evidence did not warrant the
judgment ordered. S'tT
3. While the vendor was so wronefullv in
| possession, he committed waste by removing
from the premises certain buildings and made
improvements by erecting other and some
what different buildings; the court in the
former action found that he had made inn
out finding what the character of the i'm
provements were, and. set off this claim for
improvements as aforesaid.
Held, this amounts to finding that the
value of the improvements exceed the dam
ages for waste by about 81 goo, and the ven
dee's claim for such waste is res adjudicata.
Order reversed and new trial granted.
-. -Canty, j.
Julius H. Kruger, appellant, vs. st. Paul.
Minneapolis &, Omaha Railway Company,
respondent. \