The Washington times., 1902-06-27
Jury Acquits John F. Cos
tejlo by Direction
of the Court.
IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT
Justice Anderson Says Statute Is Con-
trary to Spirit of Times-Should Be
Enforced Only Under Abundant Evil
dence of Fraud.

dence of Fraud.
NJ. john f. Costello was yesterday
acquitted in Criminal Court Ne. of
the charge of disposing of his property
with fraudulent iuten: TO defraud his
creditors.
About q year ago the defendant vas
arrested for debt at the instance OF the
Bollel- -Gwynnc- McKenny Company, If
Baltimore. which alleged that MIR. Cos
tello had disposed of certain Of his real
estate TO prevent the execution OF a
Judgment it had secured against him for
little over $1o0. After being tried
IL several branches of the Supreme
Court OF the District. on different phases
OF the case. ii came On for hearing yes
Jerday before Justice Anderson. After
hearing the testimony offered b. the
plaintiff the Court Instructed the jury to
return verdict in favor CT the defend
ant.
Question Submitted to Jury.
The question submitted to the ;ury for
consideration was: Did the said John
7. Costello. on or about the 4th day Of
May. 1901, convey to his brother, Jere-
miah Il. Costello, his undivided ons-Gfth
interest in part of lots 1920, square 4S5,
for the purpose Of hindering or delaying
the recovery OF his debts?''
This case is interesting because It
raised the question Of imprisonm FOR
debt. which was generally believed to
be abolished in the District CT Column
bia.
1t appears that in 1900 John F. Co.'S
tello, while engaged in the liquor bust
ness, purchased from the Bokel-Gwynne-
McKenny Company one barrel of whisky
for which the said firm, in May. 1901
secured a Judgment for s10O.5 before
Justice of the Peace Bundy
Execution having been issued on the
judgment, and no property of Cos
tello having been found wherein to levy.
the piaintiff corporation, through its
treasurer, Albert Wilson. made an affi-
davit that Costello had conveyed away
10 his brother, without consideration
his one-ffth interest in his fathers es-
tate for the purpose of hindering or
delaying the payment of his debts.
Arrested for Debt.
Upon this affidavit, Costello was ar
rested under an old statute regarded by
many as no longer in force in the Dis
trict. whereupon Costello, through his
attorneys, H. E. Davis and Crandcll
Mackey, procured a writ of habeas cor
pus.
Upon the refusal of Chief Justice
Bingham to discharge Costello an ap-
peal was taken to the Court of Appeals
upon the ground, chiefly, that the law
INN loI.+ 4
been repealed by the code. The Court
OF Appeals held, however, that while i'm
prisonment for debt was repealed by
the code, yet the code preserved all the
substantial rights of the parties in pro-
ceedings begun before it went into ef-
feet and that the right of execution
against the body under the old law was
a substantial right and was a matter of
practice and procedure to which the old
law applied.
Jury Trial Ordered.
Upon the docketing of the mandate
Costello was again arrested, and his at
torneys procured another writ of ha-
beas corpus, and in accordance with the
statute demanded the framing of issues
and a trial by jury. There being no jury
in attendance in the Circuit Court, Judge
Bingham certified the case TO Criminal
Court No 9 for trial of the issues by the
jury there.
At the conclusion OF the plaintiffs
case Mr. Crandell Mackey IN behalf of
Costello requested the court to return
verdict for the defendant upon the
ground that the plaintiff had failed TO
show that the conveyance by Costello
to his brother of the property in ques
tion was for the purpose of defrauding
the plaintiff or hindering or delaying the
recovery of any debt.
Justice Anderson, in delivering his
opinion, stated that no presumption OF
fraud arose from the conveyance by a
debtor Of his real estate; that because
q man was in debt at the time he con-
veyed away his property was not of it
self conclusive evidence that he did SO
to hinder or delay the recovery OF his
debts.
The justice further remarked that if
he were holding court OF equity he
would not set aside n conveyance al
legged to have been made in defraud of
creditors upon the character of testi-
nlony adduced in this case, and that
certainly when the question of the lib
erty OF a citizen was involved, under a
law so drastic that it imprisoned q man
upon the mere affidavit OF another, and
prescribed day for his deliverance
when once in prison, the conscience Of
the court would not tolerate n finding
for the plaintiff except upon clear and
and strong showing that the defendant
conveyed away his property with an
abiding intent 10 delay the recovery Of
his debts.
such a statute said Justice Andcr-
son. being contrary 10 the spirit of our
times and shocking t. the mind 0, ex-
listing society. offering as 1t does the
widest range for abuses and oppression
should be enforced by a court only