Case Name: In re Harrington
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1906-02-23
Citations: 127 Wis. 241
Docket Number: 
Parties: In re Harrington.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 127
Pages: 241–242

Head Matter:
In re Harrington.
January 30
February 23, 1906.
Habeas corpus: Constitutional law: Sentence to state reformatory: Transfer to state prison by board of control: Judicial powers.
Sec. 4944c, Stats. 1898, as amended by eh. 28, Laws of 1899, authorizing the board of control, under certain circumstances, to transfer convicts from the state reformatory to the state prison, is not a conferring of judicial power on the board of control, which, by the constitution, is confined to courts.
Application for a writ of habeas corpus.
Denied.
Original writ of habeas corpus sued out to discharge petitioner from custody by tbe warden of tbe state’s prison. On May 8, 1903, be was convicted of crime and sentenced to an indeterminate term of one to seven years at tbe reformatory at Green Bay. About November 23,1905, be was transferred' to tbe Wisconsin state prison at Waupun by an order of tb& state board of control, on tbe ground that it appeared to said board that said Harrington belonged to class 1, as defined by sec. 4944c, Stats. 1898, as amended by cb. 28, Laws of 1899,. and that bis continued presence in tbe reformatory was detrimental to tbe other inmates thereof, under which order be is now held. A return being made disclosing these facts, tbe case was beard thereon.
Eor tbe petitioner there was a brief by Morse <& Johnson, and oral argument by B. L. Morse.
Eor tbe respondent there was a brief by tbe Attorney General, and oral argument by A. C. Titus, assistant attorney general.

Opinion:
Dodge, J.
Tbe petitioner seeks to assail tbe constitutionality of our recent statutes authorizing tbe indeterminate sentence and tbe transfer of prisoners upon tbe order of the board of control. He waives discussion of tbe constitutionality of the portion of those statutes authorizing an indeterminate sentence, in deference to In re Schuster, 82 Wis. 610, 52 N. W. 757, bolding that snob question would be reviewable upon writ of error to tbe conviction and sentence and, therefore, is not upon writ of habeas corpus. He, however, seeks consideration of tbe question whether tbe authority given to the board of control is a conferring of judicial power, which, by the constitution, is confined to courts. This subject is fully considered and decided in In re Linden, 112 Wis. 523, 88 N. W. 645, which is decisive against the contention of the petitioner.
By the Court. — The petitioner is remanded to the custody of the warden of the state prison, to be held as before the writ issued.