The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-10-18
SUPREME COURT DECISION
Only TERM CONNECTS GET COM
MUTATION.
THE McKAHAN HABEAS CORPUS CASE
If Life Convict has his Sentence COMMITTED
by the Governor Communication Time
is Reconed From That

ceedlng the supreme court yesterday
handed down an opinion in which the
decision of Justice Montgomery is affirm
ed by the full bench.
The petitioner in this case was John
s. McMahon, a convict in the peniten-
tiary. He was convicted of murder
at the June term 1898, of Macon Su-
perior court, and sentenced to be hanged
The sentence was committed by the Gov
ernor to imprisonment for life. The
prisoner was received at the penitentiary
on June s, 1889, under this committed
sentence and has been confined there
since that time. On August Is, $780,
his sentence was further committed to
Imprisonment for II years.
Without Communication he would be
entitled to his discharge twelve years
from the day he was imprisoned. But
he contended that he was entitled to
communication of five days each month for
good behavior, in accordance with an
act passed by the last Legislature, and
being so entitled he should be discharged
on September Tth, 1899.
In the course of its opinion, which is
written by Justice Furches, the court
says:
THE policy of the Legislature in pass
ing this act was, as we suppose, to in
duce convicts to submit to the govern
ment of the penitentiaTy authorities, and
thereby to reduce the expenses and les
sen the cost of controlling and guarding
the prisoners. But it did not and could
not apply to prisoners for life; their
terms could not be shortened, as there
was no limit to work to, until death,
and then communication would do them no
good. But no statutory communication
could be allowed except by legislation,
and the statute allowing Communication
expressly limited it to those imprisoned
for a term of years. And there seems
to be the same reason for allowing COM
mutation to prisoners whose sentences
have been reduced to a term of years
by the clemency of the Governor as
there is for extending it to those origi-
nally imprisoned for term of years
that they may thereby be induced to be
better prisoners.
THE view we take of this case COM
pels us to disagree with the contention
of the petitioner; that he is not entitled
to anything under the statutory com
mutation acts, that he was not entitled
to under the original sentence of death,
but we have to hold that he is entitled
to more now than he was then-that he
is now entitled to the statutory commu-
tation as a prisoner for years.
THE discussion of this case leads us
to the following conclusions:
81 That a prisoner for life is not
entitled to the statutory communication,
contained in the acts of 1899, or in the
statute of 1885 or in section 3,445 of
the Code.
-. That a prisoner whose term has
been committed from life sentence to a
| term of years is entitled to the statutory
communication contained in these statutes,
from and after the date of such commu-
| tation.
%. That the Act of 1899 was amenda-
tory of the former acts and only changed
the rule by which statutory commuta-
| tons should be determined, after dts
passage.
/ n That the passage of the Act of
1899 did not deprive-talSe away from
prisoners the statutory Communication
they had earned up to the time of its
passage, but that they are still entitled
| 10 the same, and also to what they may
be entitled to under the Act of 1899; that
what they had earned before the pas
sage of the Act of 1899 and what they
have earned under the Act of 1899 may
| be added together to entitle them to q
discharge, if, by SO adding they are
entitled to the same; that is, if, by SO
adding, they complete the term Of years
for which they are imprisoned"
4
| Opinions were handed down by the
court yesterday afternoon as follows:
| In re Mcmahon, proceeding in habeas
corpus, decision of Justice Montgomery
affirmed by the full bench.
Roberts vs.. Conner, from Franklin;
reversed.
/ State VS. Elks, from Pitt; affirmed.
State vs. Brown, from Pitt; no error.
Swain VS.. Phelps, from BERTHE; re
versed.
Edwards VS.. Deans, from Berthe
Tyler VS.. Capehart, from BERTHE
affirmed.
Hines VS.. Mercer, from Edgecombe
affirmed.
Howard VS.. Life Association, from
Craven; affirmed.
Bird VS.. Gillian, from BERTHE; no er
ror.
Cases argued from the Fourth district
State VS.. Seagrove, State VS.. Fagt
and State VS. White, argued by Attorne!
General for the State, Douglass q Simmi
for the defendants.
State VS.. Smith, by Attorney Genera
for the State; Argo x Snow for defend
ant.
State VS.. Davis, by Attorney Genera
for State, johnson & Lane for defendant
Fleming VS.. Stewart and Shell VS.
Hodges; dismissed ON motion Of appellee
We'll VS.. Casey; submitted on printe'
brief by Allen Il Dortch FOR the plaintiff
and III. S. Parker for defendant.
Finlayson VS.. Kirby; argued on motion
of W. G.. Munroe to dismiss.
| Adams VS.. Battle by .Argo & Snow 70