The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1903-11-17
TO W0RKH0USE
Habeas Corpus Failed to
Work This lime.
Woman Of Durham Bsfore Justice va Nsr'
Interesting Legal Poin.---appeai 10
Full Court Probable.


ME House. Of Durham. Tor discharge
from the Durham county work house
upon a writ OF habeas corpus. So she
had TO go back 10 don the stripes. unless
She makes a successful appeal TO the iull
co.,,
The woman keeps a house or i'll fame
in Durham, and was indicted upon that
charge at the September. 1870. term ~
Durham Superior court, Judge Hoke pre-
siding. She pleaded guilty pud was not
represented by counsel. In judge sons
tonced her to serve twelve months IN
the county wcrk-house, the sentence TO
begin November 1st. 1900. 50 as 10 give
her time TO dispose Of her property. L
then appears that the clerk Of the court
was told by the judge that i she lett
town he need not comm her to he
work house. The court told her to 50,
and she left the court room and re-
manned in Durham thirty days trying to
sell a house she owned, ami then quit
the town.
Some ten days ago. after an absence
Of about three years, Malnic House re-
appeared in Durham, and proceeded to
run not only her old house, but an
other one. These houses were so dis
orderly that citizens complained OF them,
and the clerk of the court issued a
capias under the original order OF the
court, and committed hc~ to the work
house.
That was last Saturday. The House
| woman employed counsel and determined
to ask for discharge upon a writ OF
habeas corpus. Yesterday was Che time
set for the hearing, before Judge Walker
in chambers at the Supreme Court, at
eleven o'clock. The woman was nere IN
custody of the keeper of the Durham
county work-house, j. G.. Ferguson and
Deputy Sheriff Cults. Her husband was
With her, also. Mr.. Howard a.
Fcushee, of the firm OF Man
ming & Foushee, appeared for her, and
Judge r. w. Winston, OF the firm of
Winston & Bryant, was present for the
State and citizens of East Durham.
Mr.. Foushee read the petition, in which
i was set out that the defendant was
u~nlawfully detained under a Judgment
| which was void because the Same was
conditional and also because she was sen
fenced to one year in the Work-house.
the sentence to begin November LIST, 1900.
and that the time having past she could
not be re-sentenced. 1t was also urged
in the petition that the clerk of Durham
| Superior court could not issue the capias
during vacation, and that the commit
ment papers were irregular.
Mr.. FOuShee CCntended that the judy
nent had expired on October 31st, 1901,
that the defendant could not now be
imprisoned on the old charge, and that
the judgment meant that she was to be
banlshed for twelve months. Otherwise
a bond or recognizance would have been
required of her, as had been done in all
cases found in our reports. He also ar
gued that the clerk Of the court mad no
authority to commit the defendant to the
work-house, that this could only be lone
on notice Of the solicitor at a criminal
term Of Superior court.
Judge Winston III reply cited state
against Hatley, 10th y. c.. p. 522, n
which the court decided that the clerx
could issue a capias against the defendant
during vacation. The facts in this CAGE
OF Manic House disclosed, said he, that
she pleaded guilty at the Scptemb y
term, 1900, of Durham Superior court.
to the charge OF keeping a house OF i'll
fame, and was sentenced TO Twelve
months on the roads, the sentence to be-
gin November list, 1900. and further that
she left Durham county in October, 1909.
and remained out OF the county until
October. 1903, when she returned and set
up her nefarious business again. The
citizens had by this time become thor
oughly aroused, as Mamie House had
tw1ce before then pleaded guilty ana
been let off BY the ~clcmcncy Of the
court.
Upon these facts Judge Winston cited
State against Cockerham, Cd Iredell 2ot.
to the effect that the judgment was not
conditional nor was it a decree of ban
lshment. He also cited an opinion by
| Justice CASTOR 10 tho effect that tho
time Of the sentence is no part of the
sentence itself. Judge Winston also
made the point that the writ of habeas
corpus was not Z proper remedy, as the de-
fendant was II custody under the final
judgment Of 4 court Of competent juris-
~dictlon, citing Il \. G. co. in re Schenck.
Mr.. Foushce called attention 10 tie
case mentioned in the newspapers In
which during the last administration, 3
prisoner was kept in the penitcntiary two
years beyond his term and died. and lis
administrator sued and recovered s39r
ter his services during those two years.
Judge Walker, alter giving close alton
ton to the case for nearly two hours
adjudsed as follows:
This is an application 70 % discharged
from the custody OF the keeper Of The
wcrk-houac OF Durham COUNT, where thu
b'rhtfCstl - ILiIpI -oDiIt'i uuilCI a ilIOQ-
ncnt Of the Superior court Of Durham,
ccuntn. - appears in tho papers.
The application Tor the discharge was
made upon the return TO a writ Of habeas
corpus previously issued ~ me.
Nov, alter hearing the evidence and
the argument Of counsc and after do,
Consideration Of the same: Il i aaiudcsd
that the petitioner IS not entitled to q
discharge and she is accordingly r..
nanded."
Judge Walker said that if the prisoner
wanted e appeal TO tho full court. b
mad no doubt the court would advance
the case % that i could be heard a,
soon as tho record was ready.
50 the woman can appeal 10 tho full
court. Mr.. FouShee had not decided
"hcn ne left as to what he would do.
Death of Mrs J. @. Adams.
information came to Raleigh in d tele