Case Name: Henry C. Garland versus James W. Williams
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1860
Citations: 49 Me. 16
Docket Number: 
Parties: Henry C. Garland versus James W. Williams.
Judges: Nice and Davis, <3J., concurred.
Reporter: Maine Reports
Volume: 49
Pages: 16–24

Head Matter:
Henry C. Garland versus James W. Williams.
The plaintiff was arrested on an execution and gave the bond provided by ' statute. The last day of the six months was Sunday. He commenced his disclosure on Saturday, but the proceedings not being completed the justices adjourned to meet at the jail on Monday. Before the expiration of the six months, the debtor, to save a breach of the bond, voluntarily surrendered himself and went into jail. He was allowed to take the poor debtor oath on , the Monday following by the justices, who gave him a certificate thereof, by force of which he demanded his -release of the keeper of the jail; which being refused, he brought an action of personal replevin against the jailer: Held, that the action could not be maintained; and that the defendant have judgment for a redelivery of the body of the plaintiff, to be disposed of as the law provides.
On Report from PTisi Prius, Appleton, J., presiding.
This was an action of personal replevin, against the defendant, who was the keeper of the jail in Bangor, under the sheriff of the county of Penobscot, — to replevy the person of the plaintiff from his custody.
The plaintiff having been arrested on an execution, on the 26th day of June, A. D. 1858, gave the bond provided by statute, to be released from arrest. He caused the creditors in the execution to be cited to attend on the 25th day of December, to hear his disclosure, when he would claim to take the oath provided for poor debtors. The parties met at the place and time designated by the notice. The limitation of six months expired on the next day, Sunday. The examination of the debtor was continued on Saturday, by the attorney of the creditors, until .a few minutes before twelve o’clock of that night. The debtor then signed the disclosure he had made. The justices adjourned the further proceeding upon the disclosure to the office of the jail in Bangor, to Monday the 27th of said December; and, before that day, the plaintiff had surrendered himself to the jailer.
On the 27th of December, the justices met according to adjournment, when the attorney of the creditors, protesting that further proceeding of the justices was unauthorized, objected thereto; and objected further that the justices could, not adjourn to a place other than that named in the citation.
But the justices overruled the objections, and administered to the debtor the oath provided by statute, and delivered to him a certifícale of discharge, by force of which he demanded of the defendant to be released from imprisonment; but the jailer declined to release him. Ho was subsequently enlarged by this process of replevin.
Upon the trial, the plaintiff offered to prove, that the examination of the debtor was intentionally and unnecessarily pi'otracted by the creditors, to coxxsunxe the time to twelve o’clock, axxd thus prevexxt the debtor from obtaining a discharge. Axxd that, after the debtor had signed the disclosure, the couxisel of the creditors objected to the administration of the oath to the debtor, on the grouxxd that he wished to produce testimony axxd have an opportunity to be heard in the argmneixt of the case ; that it was ixx consequexxce of this request by the creditors that the justices adjourned for further proceeding.
The plaixxtiff claimed to introduce this testimony, as these facts are xxot stated in the record of the magistrates, axxd do not coxxtradict it.
The presidixxg Judge excluded the testimony. The parties thereupon agreed that the case should be re|30X’ted for the decisioxx of the full Coxxrt.
The debtor was arrested oxx an alias exeoxxtion of the date of Juxxe 15th, A. I). 1858. The certificate of discharge of the jxxstices describe the execution on which the debtor was arrested, as having beexx issued oxx the 10th day of February, A. D. 1858, axxd that the debtor, "oxx the 26th day of June, A. D. 1858, was enlarged on giving boxxd to the creditors.
The case was argxxed by
Knowles, for the plaixxtiff, and by
II. M. Plaisted, for the defendaxxt.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was drawn up by
Aepleton, J.
This is an action of personal replevin against the defendant as keeper of the jail in Bangor.
The plaintiff having, on 26th Juno, 1858, been arrested on execution, gave a bond with the conditions prescribed by law. After duly notifying the creditor in the execution on which he had been arrested to hear his disclosure, on 25th December, 1858, he commenced the same. Before it was finished or the oath taken, he, on the same day, voluntarily surrendered himself to jail, and, after his commitment, and on 27th December, took the poor debtor's oath.
By voluntarily surrendering himself, the plaintiff performed one of the conditions of his bond and the sureties thereon were discharged.
The writ de homine rephgiando lies in favor of a person unlawfully imprisoned. The plaintiff was not unlawfully imprisoned, for he was in jail by a voluntary self surrender. He was then "in jail on an execution in a civil suit."
The form of a certificate in case of the imprisonment of the poor debtor is given in R. S., 1857, c. 113, § 31, which, by § 32, is to be filed in the office of the jailer, whereupon he is to be set at liberty.
The plaintiff could not file such a certificate for no such had been signed by the magistrates. The one given was applicable to the case of a poor debtor arrested on execution and "enlarged on giving bond to the creditor." It was for one at liberty and not for one then in prison. It gave no authority to the prison keeper to set at liberty the debtor then in his custody, for it was not applicable to one imprisoned.
The plaintiff, then, was a poor debtor, who voluxitaxily surrexidered himself to discharge his sureties. lie caxmot, when ixxxprisoxxed, take advaxxtage of an incomplete disclosure, comineixced before his surrender. He mxxst, it would seem, commexice his proceedings de novo for a discharge.
As the plaixxtiff surrexidered himself before completing his disclosux'c, what'took place at that time becomes immaterial.
The certificate of the justices describes a different execU tion from that on which the bond was given, and no motion to amend has been made.
According to the agreement of parties, a nonsuit must be entered, and the defendant have judgment for a redelivery of the body of the plaintiff, to be disposed of agreeably to law. Hutchins v. Van Bokelen, 34 Maine, 126.
Plaintiff nonmil.
Nice and Davis, <3J., concurred.
Tenney, C. J., and Gutting, J., concurred in the result.