Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1903-11-11
PRISONER FREE,
RIGHT OR WRONG
Supreme Court RENTS
Case for Ferreira's
Discharge.
NOT A QUESTION WHETHER
CIRCUIT JUDGE WAS CORRECT
INTERESTING DECISION IN MAT.
TER OF APPLICATION FOR
HA6EAs coRPus-THE
OPINION.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday
handed down a decision In the matter
of application OF F. NJ. Brooks in be.
half of Domingos Ferreira for writ of
habeas corpus. reversing the decision
and order appealed from remanding
the prisoner to custody and RENTING
the case to the Circuit Judge with di.
rections to discharge the prisoner.
Chief Justice Frear writes the opin.
ion which is. in part, as follows:
A decision dischargng a prisoner
on habeas corpus conclusively deter.
mines that he was not liable to be held
on the state OF facts then existing.
A prisoner was enormously dis.
charged on habeas corpus because, al.
though the judgment and sentence were
valid and a mittimus had been issued
to the High Sheriff. who was by law
responsible for the safe-keeping OF all
prisoners, the prison.keeper was not
furnished with a certified copy Of the
| judgment and sentence and no mitti.
mus was directed to him. No appeal
was taken. Subsequently a certified
copy OF the judgment and sentence was
furnished the prison-keeper and the
prisoner was re.arrested. Held. that
on second application for a release
on habeas corpus, there was no mate.
rial change in the facts, the first deci.
sion was binding, and 1t was error to
! remand the prisoner to custody.
The petitioner. who was serving a
term OF Imprisonment for eighteen
months in Oahu prison under a sen.
tence Of a Circuit Court. was discharg.
ed by a Circuit Judge on habeas cor.
pus, apparently on the ground that the
mlttimus was not directed to the
keeper OF the prison as well as to the
| High Sheriff, and that such keeper
did not have in his possession a cert.
fled copy of the judgment and sentence
or other written authority to hold the
| prisoner. The petitioner was rear.
rested and, on suing out a second writ
of habeas curpus, was remanded to
custody on the ground that since his
first discharge the High Sheriff had fur
nished the keeper certified copy Of
the judgment and sentence. The Cir.
cult Judge relied on the words that we
italicise in the following provision of
the Civil Laws:
Section 1874. No person who has
been discharged upon a writ of habeas
corpus. shall be again imprisoned or
restrained for the same cause, unless
he shall be indicted therefor, or con.
victed thereof. or committed for want
of bail. by some court of record. hav.
ing Jurisdiction of the cause, or unless
after a discharge for default of proof,
or for some material default In the
commitment In a criminal case, he
shall be again arrested on sufficient
proof, and committed by legal process,
for the same offense."
The petitioner contends that In
view OF the first decision which has
not been appealed from, the doctrine
of res judicata applies. II the com
mitmept" referred to in the statute
means commitment after sentence as
well as preliminary commitment for
trial, and II the Judge was correct in
his view that the prisoner could not
be held unless the keeper OF the prison
had a certified copy of the judgment
and sentence or a mittimus directed to
him. 1t may be that the statute would
apply and the second decision be cor.
rect. But, in our opinion, the first de-
cision was not correct. While 1t might