The Roswell daily record. [volume] (Roswell, N.M.) 1903-current, 1907-07-22
AN IMPORTANT RULING
TO THE SHEEPMEN.


Judge Pope mas just made an impor
tant decision, which is of great inter
est to sheep men. The ruling follows:
In the District Court of the Fifth Ju-
diciaI District.
In the Matter of the Applica-
ton of Antonio o
No. 90.
The petitioner was found guilty be-
fore a justice of the peace for violat-
ing Chapter 81 of the Session Laws
OF 1905, and sentenced to a term of
Imprisonment and the payment of the
costs. Alleging that the act is uncon-
s~titutional, he now . seeks discharge
upon Habeas Corpus.
The statute under which he is held
is as follows:-
Any person or persons, who under
the p%retense of hiring to do work for
any otner person or persons who shall
obtain in advance and on account OF
promise of work to be done by such
person or persons, any goods or o
ey, and afterwards being able so to do
wilfully, fails to perform the work
agreed by such person or persons to
be performed; be punished before any
justice of the peace by a fine of not
less than fifty dollars, and no more
than one hundred dollars, Or by i'm
prisonment in the county Jail for not
less than three months nor more than
six months or both; Provided, How
ever, If before, or at the time said Ia
Dor was to be done or performed said
person Or persons shall refund said
money or pay for any goods so obtain
ed and interest on the same, this law
shall not apply"
1t is alleged thai this statute is void
because violation of the COMPRESSION
al act of March 2, 1867 lR. S. SIDE.
1900 against peOnage, also because
~violative of the amendment prohibit
ing slavery and involuntary servitude
and also because it deprives the pc
titioner of the equal protection of he
laws, guaranteed to him by the Four
teentn Amendment.
Did the statute close without the
proviso there might perhaps be room
for the contention that it is valid
as being a legislative announcement
of a certain form of securing money
or property by false p~retense. The
use of h word "pretense of hiring"
indicates that the intention was not
to punish hos who in good faith pro
mise to work n subsequently fail
to do so, but rather those who de-
ceitfully and f~raudulently promise,
land thereby receive the property of
another on the strength of such pro
mise at the time knowing that they
do not expect to do the work A num-
Der of Southern States have statutes
of this kind and they have been very
generally upheld upon the ground.
that they punish not the failure to re-
pay the money but the fraud which
characterized its original receiving.
1t is pointed out in these cases that
the prohibition against imprisonment
for debt found in the several state
constitutions does not as a rule ex-
tend to S of fraud. Some of the
cases -~upholding statutes upon this
theory are:
State v Norman On. c. IA S. E. 96S.
Lamar V. State, AZ S. E. 95S.
State v. Esterlin, IS. c. 80 S. f.
$50.
State v. Williams. Is. CO. 10 s. E.
551 and
State v. Murray, Q4a.) 40 So. $50.
The chief difficulty in the present
cases arises from the existence of the
proviSO ia this statute TO the effect
that the law is not to apply IF before
or at h time aid labor was to be
done or performed said person Or per-
son snail refund said money or pay
for any goods so obtained and inter
est on the same" This promise is
IOuuQ III nO-1S VI Tx CdSCS dDONO Il
ed, and to my mind distinguishes them
from the case at bar. In those cases
the act punished was the fraud in re-
ceiving the money or goods. In the
present statute, however, the law puts
it within the power of the culprit by
paying the debt with-interest to make
himself immune. If he is imprisoned
therefore it is because he has failed
to pay, INT if imprisoned because of
failure to pay it is imprisonment for
debt. The statute is therefore one of
the class referred to and discussed i'm
Carr v. State, LOG, Ala. E35, "a A. S. R.
IL where it was held, constituting a
proviso similar to this, mat it showed
the true intent and purpose of the
law to be Imprisonment for debt and
not for fraud, whatever might be its
superficial or apparent intent.
] cannot consider valid a statute
which while penalizing a fraud says
to the offender that if he has enough
money to pay up, his ofense stands
coldoned. It says i'm effect to the
party who may have committed a
fraud: If you have the money to repay