Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1903-11-11

be better practice to leave some writ.
ten authority with the prison.keeper
personally the mittimus to the High
Sheriff alone was sufficient. It was in
accordance with the long prevailing
practice here and the High Sheriff him.
self was the one responsible for the
safe-keeping of all prisoners. Civ. L.,
Section 1919. 1t was alleged in the
petition for the writ Of habeas corpus
that the petitioner was in the custody
Of the High Sheriff and such writs
have usually been directed to him and
returns by him setting forth mitti.
muses. to him have been deemed suffi.
Client in habeas corpus cases.
II. as we hold, the first decision dis.
charging the petitioner was incorrect,
and II, as naturally follows from that
holding and the facts OF this case.
there was no material change in the
circumstances or the authority by
which the prisoner was held at the
second decision. the first decision. so
long as 1t stands, is res judicata. and
controls under both the statute and
the general law. That a discharge on
habeas corpus Is final and res judicata,
so long as the decision Is unreversed,
is well settled. United States vs..
Chung Shee. II Fed. 277 In re Crow,
60 Wis. $40. II is. of course under the
law OF res judicata. immaterial wheth.
err the first decision was right or wrong.
so long as the Judge had jurisdiction:
the question Is whether the second
Imprisonment Is for the same cause
and on the same authority. This is but
a special application of a general rule
applicable to other cases as well as to
habeas corpus cases. The binding
force OF decision does not depend
upon whether II Is correct or not II
that were so. no one could depend upon
II. II could be called in question as
often as a party might wish. Mistakes
will be made. But II Judge has the
requisite jurisdiction. his decision is
binding. subject to the usual modes of
correction, in all other proceedings
| brought upon substantially the same
state of facts, and that, too. whether
all the questions involved. whether of
law or fact, were presented to or
passed upon by him or not
! n the decision Of the Circuit Judge
were correct in the first case. his con-
clusion in the second case also would
be correct. because the defect suppos
! ed to exist at first was cured. There
would have been a material change In
the state of facts. But since. as we
hold. his first decision was erroneous,
in other words, since the furnishing a
certified copy OF the judgment and
! sentence to the prison.keeper made no
material difference in the state Of
facts. the first decision was res judi
cata and the second was erroneous
As we have seen, decision Is res jlI
dicata as to all questions necessarily
| involved. whether actually raised or
passed upon or not. But here, in the
| first case the question of the detention
under the Judgment and sentence. as
distinguished from the mittimus, was
actually raised. and the Judge held
that the prisoner was entitled to his
discharge notwithstandipg-m be
cause the prison.keeper did not per
sonally have a copy of the Judgment
and sentence
| The Attorney General should have
! appealed from the first decision in
! stead OF relying on the statute. We
regret that we are obliged to dts.
! charge the prisoner on the present
state of facts because of an error on