The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-02-20


and invigorates.
VOC and tl.oO, all druggists
ScOTJ & BowNE, Chemists. New Ymf-
and private restraints on any pretense
whatsoever. But the efficacy of the
common law writ of habeas corpus
reaches much farther, and takes many
forms, according to the character of
the case in which it is applied. The
authority, given to this court, in the
provision that lit may issue writs of
habeaS corpus" without limitation or
restriction, from it's nature embraces
all writs of habeas corpus known TO
the law, whether common law or statu-
tory without extending the discus
sion by reviewing the history and dis
tinCtivp character of the several com
mon law writs of habeas corpus, II IS
sufficient to say that the writ in the
present case is common law witt,
and was not issued in pursuance of the
habeas corpus act, but by virtue of the
inherent common law power vested in
the Superior court. 1T is a form of
remedy which can he administered only
by a court in banc, though single
judge may allow the writ, on sufficient
cause" Lowrie, &. j., in Gosline VS..
Place, 80 Pa. 523. "It has a much
broader scope than that form of 1t
which is secured by the habeas corpus
act; for it may issue in all sorts OF
cases where it is shown to the court
that there is probable cause for belieV-
ing that a person is restrained OF his
liberty unlawfully or against the due
course of law. The statutory remedy
falls far short of this and we fall into
inevitable confusion when We go into
the common law province of the writ
for the principles that are to rule with
in it's statutory province Williamson
VS.. Lewis, 80 Pa. .. 1t was also held
by the Supreme court in that case that
the writ of habeas corpus authorized
by the act of 1855 could not be en-
ployed in cases of conviction for con-
tempt of court. In those cases the
common law writ is the proper rem
edy.
OUT OF NECESSITY.
1t is an established principle of con-
struction that the power to render
judgment involves in it the power to
take the preliminary steps which lead
to that result" Commonwealth VS..
Simpson, Grant, 442. 1t is to be pre-
Sumed, therefore, that in giving this
court exclusive appellate jurisdiction
of cases involving the liberty of the
citizen, and to render final Judgment
therein, ii was, eX neceSsltatc rel, IN
tended to confer the power necessary
to give adequate effect to such appeals
In granting this power the legislature
is to be understood as having in view
the existing law. both common and
statute: and in employing terms broad
enough to embrace all lawful WritS or
| habeas corpus, the legislature is pre-
| Sumed to have meant all such WrltS,
undF the common law and the stat
ute of 1855. For like construction or
! a generic term see Commonwealth VS.
Bell, 145 Pa 391. The validity OF
| sentence to Imprisonment depends on
| the jurisdiction of the tribunal and
| the regularity of the proceedings in
| which it is pronounced, and relief can
be given only by a court having power
| to review and determine the question
! of jurisdiction or of regularity. rms
power, in the case in hand, is by the
| act of June "a, 1895, vested solely IN
| this court. It's exercise is made ef-
| fectual, by way of remedy, through
! the writ of habeas corpus, as anclllary
| to the writ of Certiorari
1t has long been settled that certi-
orari and habeas corpus may be sever
! ally used as anCillary TO each other.
"If habeas corpus at common law ls-
| sues, and the return to it shows that the
| prisoner is held by virtue of proceed
| ings in a court, or before a magistrate,
| over which the court issuing the habeas
| corpus has a supervisory authority, the
| said court NAV issue a certiorarl tc
bring up the record; and may thereupon
| hear and decide the case, or review and
correct the proceedings, in order to give
| efficacy to the writ of habeas corpus
| If a certiorari be issued to bring up a
| na a @ hearing %
| review, the court NAV also issue q
| habeaS corpus to bring up the defend
| ant; and may, in a proper case, admit
him to bail to appear at the hearing
| and abide the vent; and the form OF
| the recognizance must be adapted tC
| the eXigencies of the case Old forms
will not entirely suit new classes OF
| cases. but must he moulded to sui
| them" GoSlne " Place, 80 Pa. 52i. i
the writ may not be issued by judge
| of this court, preliminary to a review
of the proceeding by the court, th
| petitioner must suffer imprisonment
perhaps for months, until the meetins
of the court; a result inconsistent will
the right to a speedy determination o
the legality of his Imprisonment, whicl
it is the purpose both of the appeal anC
the writ of habeas corpus to secure
| The allowance of the writ in vacation il
in conformity with the practice in th
Supreme Court. as illustrated in Cos
line V. Place, and Com. V. Bell, supra
Section s of the act of June "a, 1895, re
quires this court to "be governed b!
the rules which do now or may here
after govern the practice in the Su
preme Court" BY section ~ Of the ac
of Nav 10. 1897, an appeal from a sen
tence is to operate as a superseded
when so ordered by the court below, o
the appellate court or any judge there
of; and, the appeal having been dul,