The Birmingham age-herald., 1909-05-12
SUPREME COURT
 QUASHES ORDER
Important Decision In Dickens
 Case At Mobile
WRONGFULLY IMPRISONED
Court Makes Some Fine Distinctions in Right of Court To Order Pro- duotion of Private Property
 For Partnership Debts.

Montgomery, May 11.-(special.)-In an opinion handed down by MT Justice simpson the supreme court of Alabama today quashed the order by which Charles C. Dickens of Mobile was committed to Jall on February l. last, and refused the petition of complainant to quash the or der of January 2S, 1909, which was found to be proper
 The effect of the ruling is to restore freedom to the Mobile merchant who has been in jail for alleged contempt of court in not complying with certain or ders of the Mobile court, and grants the petitioner 30 days in which to com ply with a further order of the court. which last order seeks to compel the merchant to file an accurate account Of his business with the court in order that partnership matters incident to the death or James O. Dickens, formerly a part her, may be satisfactorily adjudicated
 As passed upon today the case is of especial interest in view of the large amount of money invested in the deal Petition came to the Alabama supreme court in the shape of request for certio- rari, commanding the records in the osse, that it might be disposed of by the highest state body.
 Mrs. Dickens, widow of the deceased J. O. Dickens, a partner with o. c. Dickens in the conduct of a manufact- uring establishment in the Gulf Lity. brought suit against the surviving part her in the probate court of Mobile coun- ty, and requested that the property be divioed
 On May 2 1908, an order was issued by the Mobile court decreeing that c. C. Dickens file the accounts of the company with the court as soon as possible. No time was stated for compliance with such order.
 On May 2. same day, the complainant asked for an order of reference to be made to a special master to state the accounts. This order was issued May g.
 On November 4, 1908, an order was is- sued directing the defendant to forth With file his account. Refusal on the part Of the defendant to do so called forth another order of January 2S. which order decreed that Dickens had not in good faith compiled with the orders of the court of May and November 4: that the accounts which had been filed were to all extent fraudulent. The or der permitted him 30 days in which to file the account.
 This part of the lower courts ruling is upheld by the supreme court and kept in force
 Oh l. 1SUO, D1CKenS was com mitted to Jail for removing certain bonds that had been enjoined by the court osl the Sth of November. The order com manded him to turn over to receiver a list of his properties. The order, ac- oording to the records, was complied with.
 Extraordinary considerations entered into the matter upon MT. Justice Simp- sons careful review of the case.
 For instance. the justice finds that the defendant was wrongly committed to jail.
 The order of November 4, on which he was committed, was compiled with so far as turning over the bonds to the receiver A little after that time how ever, the court reversed it's receiver or der, finding Dickens solvent, which con dition necessitated return of the bonds The records do not show that they were. thereafter, taken from their safety de- postary. Dickens, however, was com mttted to jail on the strength of the order.
 The justice finds that the defendant was guilty of contempt of court and reverts to tho order of January 2S as @ mcens of settling the matter.
 Mir. Justice Simpson confesses that the distinctions drawn in his opinion are fine. "The distinction between imprison- ing man for refusal to produce his property for payment of a debt, and for refusing to deliver it to a receiver to be appropriated to the debts of a firm, is very narrow" he supplements
 The opinion of the justice, at the same time calls attention to the fact that the statutes do not provide the length of Imprisonment in contempt cases. He sug- gests that 1t might be a matter for legis- lative consideration.
 Costs of the case are apportioned as follows: Two-thirds of the cost to be paid by the petitioner and one-third by the respondent.