The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1897-02-20

writ of
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUDD CT
The petitioner of rape
the last December of the Circuit Court Second Circuit
and sentenced by the imprisonment hard labor
for of three years and pay taxed $3.50
Application Immediately made the prisoners behalf
the Circuit Judge for writ OF habeas corpus The writ
issued and after hearing the Circuit Judge dismissed the writ
whereupon the petitioner appealed to this court
The statute authorizes the punishment for fine of
exceeding thousand dollars and imprisonment hard
labor for life any number of years Chap XI, Sec g. Penal
Code.
imprisonment hard labor within the
and far legal sentence but the failed
ne though fine up $1,000 is required 1t is claimed In
behalf of that the void and that therefore
ne entitled be discharged Hdbeas Corpus and In
Cooper, 3 IIaw. II, is mainly relied upon.
Cooper decided in 1866 which date the
did not allow writ OF error III criminal and
peal had been taken habea corpus resored the only
remedy available In that the discharged the pe
ground that his void being for
prsonment only whereas the statutory for drunken
required the imprisonment be hard labor As the law
then stood we cannot saw that the decision was wrong as to the
remedy pursued But twenty years later, the court drew
distinction between Habea Corpus and Error and held that
conviction Judgment jurisdiction appears by the record
be attacked proceeding by Habea Corpus In
PiipiLdni, Haw The last in reports this
subject is In Ttcomb aw 49, where this court held
that the be void its face to entte the pet
TONER discharge habeas Where the sentence
vodabe only cognizabe Habeas Corpus
only be aside appeal or Writ of Error
The question is thus resolved the inquiry whether the
imposed in this void the imposing 1T
being without jurisdiction, it only If the
former it cognzabe in habeas corpus Coopers case is
cOntended be identical with that before His sentence
imprisonment onlya different punishment from that
prescribed by law which required imprisonment at hard
labor Whether imprisonment at hard labor severer punish
ment imprisonment without it is question upon which
may differ 1t sufficient Say that different kind Of
punishment imposed by the court from that authorized
like the bar where sentence imposed far
went, was legal
The Massachusetts by the Coopers
are-a being on wrts of error-WiIde Commonwealth
Not Dhprdc Id
Commonwealth Met. 81; Christian Commonwealth,
Met $50 S43 The statute of 1T then stood did
allow the reviewing impose sentence comfortable
law But in 1851, statute passed that whenever
Judgment criminal shall be reversed by the
supreme judicial court upon writ of account of
sentence the render such judgment therein
should have been rendered remand the for that
purpose the court before whom the conviction was had
See Jdcquins Commonwealth Cush $50 In Stdt6efS
case October D, 1896, in the State of Massachusetts
"a Rep. 1869 the held that would grant
relief by habes corpus where the
including of solitary confinement the sentence which
imposed only imprisonment hard labor The court said that
corpus would relieve when the had jurisdiction
prisoner and simply regard the extent
punishment SennOtts Jag Mass 1872 decides that
irregularities they within the
jurisdiction of the be inquired into writ of
haba corpus In the state of Ohio held that where the
sentence than that authorized by statute, pdre
ShGt1 Ohio ST. ST. greater, pdrte Van Hdgdn 20 Ohio
1876 the void but erroneous and that
habeas corpus but the proper remedy
In re Belt T. s. 9 holds that the general rule that the
writ of habeas corpus unless the court, under
whose the petitioner is held is without jurisdictions
and that it cannot be used to correct errors.
The passage of the Act respecting wrts of Chap ACN
of 1892 places in the position of Massachusetts
and other of the United States and without overrung
the case of Cooper Haw. H. emphasize the distinction
between corpus and pointed out in Ppans and
TitcODs and hold that habeas Will not lie to dis
charge the petitioner in this case.
The sentence of the Circuit Court not void The court
had jurisdiction the oense and the petitioner and the only
error indicated the did impose all the punish
ents directed by the is doubtful whether the pe
TONER in this case could of considering that
IL DrsO f provide
error shall ssueor matter held for the beneht OF the
n1ainf in But this is to decide We find