The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1903-08-15
COSTS IN HABEAs CORPUS CASES.
ChaS. E. Fink, Counsel TO the Board of
County Commissioners, Advises Them
That They Are Not Liable For Costs.

Until recently the County Commissioners
have been paying certain costs in habeas cor
nus cases In June bill was presented TO
the Board for costs in bringing an inmate OF
the House of Correction here, but the Com
missioners declined TO pay 1t until their coun.
sci. Charles Z. Fink, Esq, could look INTO
the matter and advise them. Mr.. FINK gave
a verbal opinion. to the effect that the county
was not liable for costs; that habeas corpus
cases were civil proceedings, and not crimi
nal: that they were initiated by the individual
seeking redress aud not 10y the State, and the
county was not bound to pay the costs either
upon the success or the failure of the party
applying for the writ.
The matter is one of Importance. aud has
not been passed upon by the Court OF Appeals
OF this State. A few years ago prisoner was
taken before the courts Of several counties
upon wrtS of habeas corpus, SGhlectlug each
county to costs. 1t would seem that the de
cision of one court would be sufficient, and
will be hereafter. very likely, should the Com
misSioners of other counties decline to pay
costs. as the Carroll County Board has done,
Mr.. Fink on Monday filed written opin-
ion with the County Commissioners. uphold.
ing his verbal opinion, that the county Is not
liable for costs in habeas corpus cases. II Is
as follows
To the Board Of County Commissioners Of
Carroll County:
GENT EMEN:--ln answer TO your request tor
my opinion as to whether or nSt the county IS
liable for the costs in habeaS corpus cases. !
beg to say that in my opinion the county Is
not liable for such costs.
| am unable to find anything IN the CouStl-
tuion or in the Laws Of Maryland upon the
subject; nothing in fact which could be inter.
preted TO mean that the county should pay the
costs in such cases The Court Of Appeals of
Maryland has expressly held that proceedings
under the writ Of habeas corpus are not Grim
inal proceedings and therefore must be civil
proceedings.
Annapolis vs. Howard. 50 Nd. pa.
Deckard vs.. State, IS Nd. lS6.
Bell rs. State, 4 Gill, 2ol.
Ex-Parte. Hugh O'Ne;ll Md, 225.
State vs.. Mace ) Nd. 3&7.
Ext arte Coston. % Nd. al.
State vs. Boyle, % Nd. 500
COstoB vs.. COston, - Nd 500.
Such proceedings are always started by The
individual and not by the Stale, and being
therefore purely civil proceedings, there Is %"
reason why the county should hear the costs
either upon the failure or the success OF the
party applying for the writ.
Nor was the county held liable for such
Of Common Law have frequently held that,
although the writ Was a writ Of right aud the
party detained Was entitled TO II without see
and without charge, at the same time he vas
obliged to reimburse third parties, @ho might
be put 70 expense ans trouble 10 taxing ham
before the court. and the courts held tbs; such
recompeuse wAs not fee or charge ia the
ordinary acceptance Of the tcrm. bui must he
regarded as compensation t5r services. ~.
naliy. the Statute pi 81 Charles II Has passed,
providing that such compensation should r.
a,crrtainrd by the court, bat wAs mol Ca eN.
coed lwclve pence per mile
Hard nabeas Corpus, ed. page 2l1,
Book n, Chap. =. Sc. III.
Tndcr this action the courts held that the
failure or inability uf rhs party detained tn pay
the charges did not excuse the party deta3g-
ing him from oieyiuE The writ. bHi that the
court would net discharge The prisoner anii
she charges were paid.
As late A. ] SD ii AS briI 10 England ia a
eas" where = person sas detained uuirF DC
f-ciIEe commitment, Aad Nss ina I71r 90 I5'y
the rxIr-uss ri hriuE brought before isr Csart
on q ant 81 habas,- corpus, 'lsai BIZ esther has
Co pay the expense az 20 Sithagi Iaf o"Erai
af the urii-
Ex Partc Martins. Dosing, Practice
Cases l94, i-lN.
II the absence 90 aay las 90 our rs- Stale
upon ihe sabieci en- assye srasas ana an
iL1rigg lcsce me "a ib, e,aucss.suH thst lnr
county +. not ial'r iaT c.sss bee hai'eas gafFas
cases
The c}erk aud rT5cr are aai aa.sz~i aH!cr
she law CO. enter am SERVICES sa lar>a eases
unless repaired o. ia a1 - ihs court H lhry
are sa repaired laea tkey mg-i Hnys 90 she "
liiiogrs for reyaail--rszr IS is.y So lH aFEESfF
trv,5 eases anE iasF tas .aes Ht -gEa fee s.'H