The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1899-05-29


court In the habeas corpus case Of Lou
Van Alstine and Emma Norton has been
received In this city. It shows that the
refusal Of the higher court To- sustain
Judge Moore In ordering the two women
imprisoned for contempt in refusing to
pay into court the money adjudged TO b
due from them TO Con Van Atstine. the
Klondiker. was upon tho broad ground
that the court had no power to require
them 70 pay money into court and there
after enforce that Judgment BY irapriscn-
ment.' to quote the language Of the opin-
ion itself.
The higher court devotes several pages
OF tho opinion 10 a discussion OF the pow
ers or the superior court TO enforce its
DEGREES and of contempts In general. The
conclusion arrived at Is that the contempt
the two women were guilty OF in falling
to obey the decree in the famous conspir.
acy-divorce case was a civil contempt
and that the violation OF the courts order,
which was to enforce the remedy Of
private party, wa8 not punishable BY Inn
rrisonment
The following II the substance OF the
opinion, excluding the formal statement
OF the case. with which all newspaper
readers are familiar:
IN this case the superior court Of King
hned and imprisoned in the county iajl
until they shall have brought into and de-
posted IN the registry Of that court the
writ OF habeas corpus directed TO the shee-
IN restoring them to their liberty.
~ appears from the record that an ap-
peal has been taken from the original
Judgment and decree and is now pending.
and IN view OF this fact and the import
ahce OF some OF the questions necessarily
involved IN the consideration Of the appeal,
from discussing such questions in the pres
ent proceeding.
Powers Of the Court,
I'VE think the petitioners are entitled
TO discharge upon the broad ground that
the court has no power to require them to
pay the money into court, and thereafter
enforce that Judgment BY Imprisonment.
counsel for the husband. Van Astine, con.
tend that the lower court, hav-
,ns had had ,urisa,etion q the par
and having adjudsed them guilty Of con.
tempt. all that this court can do In habeas
corpus proceedings IL to remand the petit
uonsrs and let them pursue thu proper
exist. In the procsedings. And their main
argument. both orally and In their hrief
Vas va. directed to sustaining that corien
I'VE think that our statute upon habeas
corpus shows the faliacy Of tbs corten s
ton In the following section:
NO court or judge shall inquire into
whereby the party Is In custody, or dis
charge him when the term OF Commitment
has not expired. in either OF the cases
Upon any process issued On any anal
Judgment OF court Of competent juris-
For any contempt OF any cour, Officer
or body having authority ii the premises
to commit; but an order Of commitment
as FOR contempt upon proceedings to en-.
s sGaSs the 1c a rredy q party !. not in
tons
''rha so-calied contempt with which the
petitioners are charged Is a civil contempt
II consists In failing 10 do something that
the court has ordered TO be done for the
benefit Of the opposing party in a civil ac-
ton.
Unlike Order for Suit Money.
''The language Of the last portion Of the
second subdivision makes an exception TO
the rule for which counsel contend. and
the present application falls squarely with
in the exception Here Is a decree for
money-a decree analogous to a money
Judgment at law-which may be enforced
BY process against property. 1t differs
thing in specie OF which a party has been
deprived and for the loss OF which COM
pensation In damage cannot De made. or
requiring the performance OF some specific
act which II is the duty OF a party TO per-
form. The petitioners were not officers OF
the court and tho money is not required
10 Ue paiQ from funQ IN respect to which
they stand In the relation Of trustees
ut IL unlike an order for suit money I'm
an action for divorce which by the sta
tute may be enforced by attachment. AMI
In rendering this decree for the amount
found due the court had no power to d.
rect IL TO be deposited with the clerk and
enforce that order Try imprisonment than
II would have had In a law action based
upon tho same state OF facts
The statute which authorizes the court
In granting divorces to make disposition
Of the property OF the parties does not
give the court Jurisdiction to enforce It's
DEGREES by attachment. although that pow.
er Is expressly given by the preceding sec
ton for the enforcement of orders made
while an action Ia pending
Nor does this case fail within the pro-
visions Of chapter !. 1.-THE 3. OF Baiinser's
Code, relating to proceedings supplemental
TO execution. assuming without deciding
that the provisions Of the chapter do not
conflict the provision OF the constitution OF
this state that there shall he no srnpr, SON
ment for deb, except IN tha case OF ab-
scondinE debtors
THE prisoners are entitled 20 be dis
charged. and IL IL so ordered"
The opinion IL written BY Justice Gordon
and all the other judges concur.
n ur~e