The record-union., 1897-11-11
MADE SHORT WORK OF IT.
SUPREME COURT SAT IN BANK
IN ]. H. TODD'S CASE.
Ordered That He be Discharged
on His Appeal in Habeas
Corpus.

The habeas corpus case of ]. w. TODD
came up in the Supreme Court sitting
an bank yesterday on appeal from the
decision of Judge Hart committing him
10 the County Jail for contempt Of court
until he should pay his wife the arrears
of $40 a month alimony, amounting to
some $500 and it took the court llttle
less than twenty minutes to near
the case and order Todd's discharge.
General Clunie, of Todds counsel,
stated that the discharge of Mr.. Iodd
on habeas corpus was asked on the
ground that the commitment dld not
show that he had committed any Of
fense that should deprive him OF MS
liberty and that in fact he had COM
mitted no such act.
He recapitulafed the facts presented
before the Superior Court, showing shat
Todd had no money or property. he
read the commitment to show on Wnat
grounds he had been committed. He
contended that under the facts SET OUT
in the commitment, under the Constitu-
tion and laws of this State, it was SIM
ply Imprisonment for debt He quoted
from several cases, among them an
opinion of Judge Mcfarland. He con-
tended that it was shown clearly that
the defendant was utterly unable TO
pay the money and that no crime had
been committed and no fraud or con-
tempt in the matter. 1t was hardly
worth while to take up the time OF the
court in discussing it. 1t is as clear
a case as could possibly be made out.
The defendant is sentenced to imprison-
ment until he pays $500 while the same
compliment shows that he is unable
to do so. If the writ is not allowed, he
can be compelled to remain in Jail for
the rest of his life unless some one will
come forward and pay the money for
him.
c. E. Elliott contended that the mat
ter had been continued in The Superior
Court for three weeks in order to AL
low the defendant to pay the money.
He had ample time before him to make
a showing of all the facts he wished.
During that time he had made no ef-
fort to find employment or obtain the
money The action of the court be-
low was partly based on the case of ex
parte Spencer, in which it was held
that the defendant, although he had
shown he had no property, had not
shown that he had made an effort to
secure employment. This is a similar
case as is shown by the language of
the commitment
In answer to a question from Judge
Henshaw as TO the precise contempt
on which defendant was committed,
counsel answered that 1t was for MAX
ing no attempt to secure employment
or raise the money.
Then" said Judge Henshaw, sal-
though it is shown by the court that
he is unable to pay the money, he is
to be imprisoned until he can pay it.
which may be for life. How is he to
raise the money to pay it, if imprisoned.
His business is that of a theatrical
manager and does not run all the year
round. Can he be compelled to seek
other employment"
Chief Justice Beatty said he had a
different point to ask a question on
If this is a contempt, it is a criminal
contempt Does not the law limit the
punishment for criminal contempt TO
five days Imprisonment?
Mr. Elliott acknowledged that ii did
and Chief Justice Beatty said tnat un-
der this commitment the punishment
may be perpetual 1t was a very Sc
1-ious difficulty This commitment
makes the imprisonment unlimited.
Mr. Elliott said that it was to compel
Todd to pay the alimony and Chief
Justice Beatty answered that alimony
is a civil action and there was another
way to compel payment.
Chief Justice Beatty then said that
he thought the opinion Of at least five
of the members of the court was that
the defendant should be discharged.
and, after a moments consultation
with his colleagues, he ordered that
Todd be discharged.
Messrs. Bridgeford for Todd and
Hinkson for the prosecution. did not
have a chance to argue the question,
the court not thinking it necessary.