The Saint Paul globe., 1897-06-09
NOT SO FAST, HULL.
EX-MINIsTER Is LEGALLY I'M
PRiSONED.
HIS SENTENCE IRREGULAR.

~ n sd.
70 -aG-
= 9srft
THE IRRESUTiARITY, HOWEVER,
WAS NoT5sueH AS TO RENDER
.ni,TI vom.
u Ad1
WRIT OF ERR0R MIGHT PERMIT
1T 1 @
His Release.ithe Court Suggests, But
Not the Writ Of Habeas Cor
pas Asked For.
0st sao- .s
Defective as his. sentence was, the su-
preme court holds, Justice Canty sign
ing the opinion, that Rev James C.
Hull, the. ex-pastor, is still properly
held within the confines of the Still
water prison, and that, while a writ of
error subsequent to the defective SEN
tence might have resulted, and no
doubt would have. in his being remand
ed Tor resentence, his release cannot
be effected by writ of habeas corpus
The syllabus of the supreme court
decision handed down yesterday is as
follows:
State, ex rel. j., C. Hull. petitioner, VS..
Henry Wolfer, warden of penitentiary, re-
spondent.
Section 1902, General Statutes 1894 pro-
vides:
In every case in which punishment in
the state prison is awarded against any con-
Wet the form cf the sentence shall be- that
ne De punished by confinement at hard labor"
Inc relator was duly indicted, pleaded guilty
and was sentenced as follows 1.-The sentence
OF tnls court is that you, James c. Hull be
con1ned and restrained in the state prison
at Saltwater, conformable 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-
IectlVe and irregular in omitting to SEN
tence reator to hard labor, but Is not ab-
! solutely void and cannot be impeached col
laterally on habeas corpus.
z; Held further, such judgment is merely
defective In form, not in substance, as sec
ton 1872 and following sections provide that
every person convicted and sentenced to the
state prison shall be compelled to perform
a reasonable amount of hard labor, and the
sentence provides that relator shall be con-
fined in such prison conformable to such
rules and regulations
Writ discharged and relator remanded.
In the opinion accompanying Justice Canty
writes
Reiator is confined in the state prison and
has sued cut writ CT habeas corpus under
that he is wrongfully deprived of his liberty.
He is charged by the Indictment with the
crime Of assault in the third degree. In the
midst Of the trial he changed his plea to
guilty, and thereupon was sentenced as fol-
lows a.
''The sentence of the court is that you,
James G. Hull be confined and restrained IN
the state prison at Saltwater, conformable 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
and void because he was not sentenced to
hard labor, as required by section 1902, Gen
era1 Statutes 1894!
This sentence Is clearly defective and 1r-.
regular. The judgment does not comply
with the statute, and, undoubtedly, on a
writ Of error, it would be reversed and the
case remanded for new sentence. But un-
less the Judgment is absolutely void, it
not be impeached collateraly on habeas cor
pus. si1 =,
In our opinion the Judgment is merely
irregular andz not absolutely void. The pro-
ceeding was in a court of general jurisdic-
ton of the parties and the subject matter
and the omission of the words hard labor"
from the sentence did not oust the court of
Jurisdiction. In each of the cases cited the
writ was raised on q writ of error.
The supreme court here refers to the Will
Jams case, a Minnesota case in which the
prisoner was sentenced to fifteen months,
when the minimum penalty under the law
was five years. Here it was held the judg-
ment was not void although irregular.
The court continues:
The objection to the sentence in this case
is that the reiator has not been sentenced to
much punishment the law requires
But even where the punishment imposed by
the sentence of court of general jurisdic-
ton is in excess of that allowed by the
statute, it has been held that the judgment
is not absolutely void, but at most void
only 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 relator
shall be confined in the state prison, "con-
formable to the rules and regulations of that
institution Some. of these rules and regu-
lations are prescribed by the following sec
tiOns of g.. S. 1884,
Sec. 1892. Every person convicted of crime
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 no person
so committed as aforesaid shall be exempt
from such labor and employment except un-
less on account of incapacitating sickness or
other disability rendering it impossible that
such labor be performed.
"Sec. 1893. The employment of convicts in
the state prison shall in all repects be gov
erned by the provisions of this chapter and
shall be conducted as specified in the sue
ceeding sections hereof"
The succeeding sections provide in detail
the systems of employment and many regula-,
tions for governing such employment.
Then we are Of the opinion that the reator
has in fact been sentenced to hard labor,
though the Judgment is not in the form pre-
dscRalged eY hS writ tH tS S BE
tody of the respondent. So ordered.
b9zs +-Canty, J.
The court handed down half a dozen other
decisions. half Of which were reversals Of
the decisions of the lower courts. The
syllabf folowufnt 2s-~t
C.. w. Abrahamson, respondent. VS.. l.. Lam
berson & George e Winchester appellants.
l. In an action tried by the court without
a jury, a finding of fact that all the ma
teriaI Allegations contained in the complaint
are true is insufficient to support a judg-
ment for plaintih.saga r.
land on an eXeeutory contract, wrongfully
Keeps the vendee out of possession the lat
ter is entitled to- recover damages for the
Withholding OF thej premises from him, or
for use and occupation for the time he is
so kept out ofpossession, and if he does re-
cover any suchl damages, the vendor is en-
chase chase n noeT on time fne unpaid pu
Where in a former action the court award
ed such damages, but set off the same against
the vendors claim for improvements made
while wrongfully in possession.
Held, although the vendor had no right to
claim for such improvements, the vendee's
claim for such damages is res adjudicata,
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 damages
should be assessed up to the time of trial
and such damages UP to such time are res
adjudfcata and merged in the judgment in
the former action. u
Held, the evidence did not warrant the
judgment ordered. sa>
8. While the vendor was so wrongfullv in
possession, he committed waste by removing
from the premises certain buildings and made
INN rNxynYp 1nF1fd hxyI Jnr AfhN