The record-union., 1897-10-31
The TODD CONTEMPT CASE.
ARGUMENTS HEARD YESTER-
DAY ON HABEAS CORPUS.
The Matter Then Taken Under Ad-
visement by Judge
Hughes.

The habeas corpus case of J. H. Todd,
committed by Judge Hart for contempt
Of court, was heard before Judge
Hughes yesterday.
Todd was committed to jail for non
compliance with the order requiring
him TO pay $40 per month alimony to
his divorced wife. He was represent
ed by General T. J. Clunie and Judge
u. A. Bridgeford. The commitment
recited that after a full inquiry into
the facts the court found that Todd had
no property Concealed or otherwise),
nothing but personal effects that are
exempt from execution, and that he had
no means with which to pay the ali
mony. But, added Judge Hart, he has
shown no disposition to seek employ
ment that would enable him to earn
money.
General Clunie and Judge Bridgeford
argued at some length to the effect
that the order Of Department Three
was unauthorized by the Constitution
and In direct conflict with that clause
which prohibits any person from being
imprisoned for debt unless fraud be
shown.
The commitment itself, they held,
showed that Todd had committed no
fraud, and that the reason he had not
paid all of the alimony to date was
because he was unable to do so. As
for his not seeking employment, the
commitment itself also stated that his
business was that of theatrical mana
ger, and that the theatrical season
would not open up until November.
Counsel further stated that Todd had
shown his disposition to obey the
courts order by paying nearly S400
of the alimOny; that he was willing
TO pay the balance due, but was tenn
porarily unable; that he had committed
no fraud, was therefore not in con-
tempt of court, and that in committing
him to jail the court had unwarrantabIy
deprived him Of his freedom. They
held that it was really an attempt to
enforce the collection of a Judgment in
civil case, and that it could not le-
gally be done in that way. In short,
that a man could not be imprisoned
for debt he was wholly unable to
pay, and in connection with which no
fraud was committed, and not even
charged; that on the contrary the COM
mitment itself in almost so many
words eXonerated him from any prac-
tice for attempt at fraud or conceal
ment
In hfs argument Judge Bridgeford met
the courts expression concerning
Todd's failure to seek employment by
denying that any court could order a
man to engage in any particular kind
OF work or employment. Courts. he
said, have control over a mans prop
erty, but not over his person to the
extent that he can be ordered out on
the streets to work.
In TOdd's case, he said, he has a spec-
af1c business-that of theatrical man
ager. That business is just now at a
standstfll, but will be resumed in a few
days, and as Mr.. Todd has at no time
manifested a disposition to evade the
payment Of the ahmony when able to
do so it IS assumed that as soon as he
has an income he viii resume his pay
mentS
Mr.. Elliott, of HinIson &. Elliott, ap-
peared on behalf of Mrs. Todd and in
opposition to the defendants discharge.
During the arguments Judge Johnson
occupied the bench with Judge Hughes.
The matter was taken under advise
ment by the court