Case Name: Commonwealth, ex rel., v. Keeper of County Prison of Philadelphia County
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1915-10-04
Citations: 251 Pa. 101
Docket Number: Miscellaneous docket, No. 3
Parties: Commonwealth, ex rel., v. Keeper of County Prison of Philadelphia County.
Judges: Before Brown, C. J., Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin, Stewart, Moschzisker and Frazer, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 251
Pages: 101–102

Head Matter:
Commonwealth, ex rel., v. Keeper of County Prison of Philadelphia County.
Contempt — Insufficient commitment — Habeas corpus.
Where a warrant for commitment for contempt fails to designate the contempt charged it is insufficient, arid on habeas corpus, a discharge, with costs, will be awarded.
Argued July 2, 1915.
October 4, 1915:
Habeas corpus, original jurisdiction, Miscellaneous docket, No. 3, in case of Commonwealth, ex rel., Mamie E. Scott v. Keeper of the County Prison of Philadelphia County.
Before Brown, C. J., Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin, Stewart, Moschzisker and Frazer, JJ.
Relator discharged.
Habeas corpus, original jurisdiction.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.
A. U. Bannard and C. Oscar Beasley, for petitioner.
The commitment is insufficient in form and void: Williamson’s Case, 26 Pa. 9; Commonwealth v. Curtis, 14 Philadelphia 361; Commonwealth v. Perkins, 124 Pa. 36; Commonwealth v. Dunn, 58 Pa. Superior Ct. 461.
No argument of paper book for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
The relator, at whose instance this writ of habeas corpus was awarded, was committed to the Philadelphia County prison on the following commitment:
"No......Term......191..
MUNICIPAL COURT OP PHILADELPHIA CRIMINAL DIVISION
Philadelphia, June 24, 1915.
Commit and retain Mamie Scott Contempt Subject to order of the Court.
To the Keeper of Philadelphia County Prison.
Thos. J. Sherman, Pro Clerk.
(Seal)"
The prison keeper might well have declined to receive the relator on this crude piece of paper, for, if it was intended to' be a warrant for her commitment for contempt, it ought to have designated the contempt of which she had been adjudged guilty by the Municipal Court, if she had been so adjudged by that court. The commitment fails to show the nature of the contempt for which she was committed, and for its insufficiency she is disr charged, with costs: Commonwealth, ex rel., v. Perkins, 124 Pa. 36.