Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1902-08-02
HAbEAS CORPUS CASE
JUDGE GEAR REMANDS
DOMIN60S FERREIRA
THE COMMITMENT FAULTY THE
GROUND OF pEclsIoN-PRls.
oNER RELEASED ON APP.
PEAL-s4.ooo BAIL.

1
by Judge Gear this morning. Deputy
Attorney General j. W. Cathcart and
Assistant Attorney General Il. A
Douthitt appeared for the Government.
and +. NJ. Brooks and George A. Davis
for the prisoner.
An appeal was noted to the Supreme
Court under which the prisoner was
released on a bond in $4,000 with his
brother, Frank Ferreira, as surety.
Mr.. Douthitt demanded that the
surety justify and Frank Ferreira be-
ing sworn testified he owned his home
| in Magazine street, for which he had
refused $1,000, and paid taxes on 1t last
year to the amount Of $5S or $50. II
was not encountered as might be ascer
tanned at the Registry Office. Besides
he owned two stores. The bond was
approved.
Following is the decision by Judge
Gear:
| The petition shows that Domingos
Ferreira has been convicted Of crime
and sentenced to prison for the term OF
eighteen months by the presiding judge
| VI tue SllNult NOulNs lIdl obuiinSOts
Ferreirs is now confined in Oahu pris-
on because Of having been taken to the
prison and imprisoned by the high
sheriff after he had been released on
habeas corpus. The petition asks for
his discharge on the ground that he
was imprisoned in oahu convict prison
in violation of Section 1874, Chapter
| toll 4 81 h.,
is again imprisoned for the same cause
as existed at the final hearing of the
writ of habeas corpus; that he Is not
restrained upon sufficient proof nor
committed on legal process within the
meaning of Section 1914. The petition
alleged that the imprisonment was UNI
der virtue Of certain mittimus Of pro-
cess which did not authorize or en-
power the jailor 10 keep Domingoes
Ferreira because no order Of the court
OF record was made nor was the prison
err detained by the order Of any court
OF record for the same otfense for which
he was originally detained.
The Attorney General alleges that he
was detained in the Jail by reason OF
the judgment, sentence and decree OF
the Court, certified copies OF which
were attached and made a part OF the
return. At the time Of the arrest duly
certified copy Of the Judgment was sup
piled by proper officers, A. NJ. Brown
High Sheriff, TO VIM. Henry, keeper Of
Oahu prison. Said High Sheriff detain'
ed said Ferreira by virtue Of the judg
ment. sentence and decree Of theSourt
The section Of the code under which
the petitioner asks TO be discharged S
1874: NO prisoner who has been dis
charged upon a writ Of hsbeas corpus
shall be again imprisoned or restrain
ed for the same cause unless he shall
be indicted therefor, or committed fol
want OF bail. by some court of record
having jurisdiction Of the cause, or un
less after a discharge for default q
proof. or for some material default II
the commitment in a criminal case. Of
shall be again arrested on sufiicien
proof. and committed by legal process
for the same offense."
J The attorneys for petitioner contend
having been once discharged upon ;
writ of habeas corpus, this Court hav
ing discharged him under the authorit!
OF exparte Oriemon, 10 Haw. Rep,
which held that the prisoner was no
detained by virtue Of the commitment
but was detained under the judgmen
and sentence Of the Court. The peti
ton claims that owing to his discharg
he can not be arrested now because h
|
q the terms OF Section 1874, such conten
, tion being applied 10 one which pro
vides that unless the discharge is 70
some material default in the commit
ment.
The matter has been fully argue,
and has been the source Of grea
J deal Of study by the Court in this cas-
because of the popularity of the read
ing Of this section; also because of tn
ruling of the Supreme Court In tn
case of 0riemon, the Supreme Cour
having held that the. commitment wa
only for the sheriff 10 take the prisone
TO Jail and after the prisoners arriva
: at the Jail he was held under the judG
ment and sentence and not under tn
I, commitment.
h The Court gave as one OF the author
tiles for releasing the prisoner the cas-
in the Federal Reporter where It wa
he'd that the jailor must have some au
thority for holding the prisoner. Thi
case held that the commitment whic
ran merely to the sheriff was not SUN
Client; that II would not only run to tn
sheriff to take charge OF, but shoul
-, also name the iailor and command hil
!" TO detain and safely keep the prisont
and see that the sentence was executed
Under the authority Of this case III
principal authority was the Federal al
~ thorities upon which the Court relie
have no doubt that IL the cOmmi
- ment had run to the High Sheriff al
stated that for him TO take the prisol
er, but also contained a notice to Il
jailor to safely keep and detain Il
prisoner under the authority OF tn
case, the commitment would have BET
sufficient. That being so the decisiC
comes in under the exception that
- was discharged for some material d
fault in the commitment. The case
the 10 Fed. Rep. S02. U. s. V. Harden
THE mittimus must be directed
the Marshal commanding him to co
gey the prisoner into the custody
the jailor, and 1t must also commaI