Evening journal., 1921-11-05
HABEAS CORPUS
CASE DISMISSED
Judge Rice Decides City
Court Had Legal Right to
Commit KozlowSi
COSTS ARE PLACED
ON PETITIONER

Habeas corpus proceedings brought
by Robert Adair, attorney for the
release from jail Of Victor Kozlow-
ski. who was committed by Deputy
City Judge Lynn last Saturday until
arrears Of S142 on non-support
order are paid. were dismissed by
Judge Rice in Superior Court yester-
day afternoon. Kozlowski was re-
manded to the custody OF Superin-
tendent Of Police Black and ne was
ordered to pay the costs OF the case.
In his opinion. Judge Rice states:
'I have given this case such consid-
Grafton as possible during the limited
time between the argument and the
present time.
Counsel for the petitioner predi-
Gates his argument almost wholly
upon the alleged fact that the pc
utioner was committed by the Dep
uty Judge OF the Municipal Court "a
a contempt proceeding. This con-
tention is not supported by the re-
turn filed or by the records before
the court in the case. II appears
from the return of George Black.
the superintendent OF police, that the
petitioner is held pursuant TO an or
der Of the deputy judge Of the Mu-
nicipal Court directing that the de-
fendant be held until the arrearages
in a non-support order previously
made by the court are paid.
"The record shows that on March
/ Z, 1921. the deputy judge OF the
Municipal Court made a temporary
order providing that the petitioner
here. who was the defendant in the
proceeding them before the court.
should pay the sum Of $50 per week
| for the support and maintenance OF
his wife and four minor children,
and ordered. without imposing the
penalty by law provided, that the
defendant should pay TO the proba-
tion officer the sum Of $50 per week
for the support and maintenance Of
defendants wife and children, and
also appear personally in court when
ever ordered TO do so, and to comply
with the terms Of the order Of sup
mort or OF any subsequent modifica-
ton thereof and also that the de-
fendant be released from custody
on probation. upon entering into a
recognizance without surety in the
sum Of $500 for compliance with the
order Of the court Dade on said 18th
day Of March, 1921.
The record further shows that
1.-THE recognizance was entered into
by the defendant: that subsequent
liv. on the twenty-eiehth day Of Oc-
tober, 1921, subpoena was issued
land served on the defendant foi
him to appear In court and show
cause why the order Of the Cour
had not been complied with. return
liable on october 29th. and on Octobe
%. the defendant being present. AM
after hearing the evidence produce
, on behalf OF the State and the dc
=. fendant. the Deputy Judge Of tn
Municipal Court ordered the de
fendant to be committed until tn
arrearages were paid, and TO Civ
' bond in the sum Of Five Hundre
Dollars with surety for complianc
with the former order
THE order OF the Court and IN
recognizance entered into was q
compliance with Section 3O37. Rev
Code. 1915.
From the record il appears tha
|, the defendant, having failed TO com
, ply with the order Of the court an
the terms OF the recognizance. wa
summoned before the Court on IN
!, twenty-ninth day Of October. a. I
: 1921. and given an opportunity {
!. show why the order of the Coui
had not been complied with.
also appears from the record tina
latter hearing the evidence the Coui
ordered him TO be held until IN
D. arrearages were paid and a bon
with sufficient surety was entere
. into by the defendant.
:, The Deputy Judge Of the Nun
:, cipal Court. even after the defend
u ant had failed TO comply with IN
order previously made. evidentl
II was reluctant to impose a term
i imprisonment under the provision
OF the statute. without first givin
the defendant an opportunity to pa
the arrears, and ordered him hel
until, tho arrearages were paid.
Y probably appearing from the ev
| dence that the defendant was wi
fully falling to comply with II
terms Of the order and the terms
} the recognizance. It being the polil
D. Of that Court as OF all other Cour
Dr. having jurisdiction in such matter
d to give a delinquent husband ar
IN father every reasonable opportuni
TO support his wife and children. ar
al not sentence him TO a term Of IN
A. prisonment IN the workhouse, whe
IN IL would be impossible for him
4 earn sufficient money 10 provide su
N, port for his family
while It possibly might have be-
preferable n the Judge had fixed