Title: Dowd v. Harmon
Citation: 229 Ind. 254, 96 N.E.2d 902
Docket Number: 28,606
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: March 1, 1951

229 Ind. 254 (1951)
96 N.E.2d 902
DOWD
v.
HARMON.
No. 28,606.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
Filed March 1, 1951.
Rehearing denied April 4, 1951.
*256 J. Emmett McManamon, Attorney General; Merl M. Wall, Charles F. O'Connor and Norman J. Beatty, Deputy Attorneys General, for appellant.
James C. Cooper, Public Defender, and John B. Dilworth, of LaPorte, for appellee.
*257 JASPER, J.
Appellee filed his verified petition for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that he was being illegally held by appellant as Warden of the Indiana Hospital for Insane Criminals. Appellant, prior to filing his return and answer, filed a verified motion for a change of judge, which was denied. Thereafter an amended return and answer was filed, to which appellee filed his exceptions. The exceptions were sustained, and appellant refused to plead further. Judgment was entered by the court ordering the release of appellee and his delivery to the custody of the Superintendent of the Indiana Village for Epileptics.
The pleadings show that appellee was committed to the Indiana Village for Epileptics, at New Castle, in January, 1946. On May 7, 1949, the Indiana Council for Mental Health issued an order transferring appellee to the custody of the Board of Trustees of the Indiana Hospital for Insane Criminals. The order was signed by the Acting Director.
Appellee asserts, in substance, that he is not a criminal and has never been convicted of a crime; that he is not an insane person, and no court of competent jurisdiction has ever committed him to the Indiana Hospital for Insane Criminals; and, further, that there is no showing that he has ever been committed to any institution, or that the Indiana Council for Mental Health has ever ordered or authorized the transfer or commitment of appellee, and that the Acting Director had no authority to do so.
Appellant first contends that the court committed error in its failure to grant his verified motion for a change of judge. It is admitted by appellee that the verified motion was in proper form and duly filed. This court has held that when an affidavit for a change of judge is timely and properly filed, based on bias and prejudice of the judge, the trial *258 court has no discretion in the matter. In examining and granting or refusing to grant such a change in a cause where a change is permitted by law, the judge acts in a ministerial way, and if the affidavit is sufficient the change must be granted. State ex rel. Ballard v. Jefferson Cir. Ct. (1947), 225 Ind. 174, 73 N.E.2d 489. This court has further held that after a proper and sufficient verified motion for a change of judge is filed, the court has no jurisdiction to consider any matter involved in the case. State ex rel. Ballard v. Jefferson Cir. Ct., supra.
Appellee asserts in his brief that appellant waived all right to claim error for the failure of the trial court to grant the change of judge for the reason that appellant failed to invoke the original jurisdiction of this court to grant a writ of mandate. In State ex rel. Williams Coal Co. v. Duncan, Judge (1937), 211 Ind. 203, 207, 6 N.E.2d 342, 344, this court said:
The appellant now before this court did not waive his right to a change of judge.
Appellee further asserts that appellant is not entitled to a change of judge in a habeas corpus action. This court, in Allen v. Fayette Circuit Court (1948), 226 Ind. 432, 436, 81 N.E.2d 683, 684, decided the question as to the right of a change of judge in a habeas corpus proceeding. It was held *259 that a habeas corpus proceeding is in its nature a civil rather than a criminal proceeding, and comes within § 2-1402, Burns' 1946 Replacement. The court said:
We reiterate the above. It was prejudicial error for the trial court to refuse to grant the change of judge.
Appellant, under his second assignment of error, contends that the court committed error in sustaining appellee's exceptions to appellant's amended return and answer. Since the same question will again be presented to the trial court, this court will rule on this assignment of error. Exceptions filed in a habeas corpus proceeding test the sufficiency of the return and answer. Exceptions have the same effect as a demurrer to a complaint. Section 3-1915, Burns' 1946 Replacement; Dowd, Warden v. Johnston (1943), 221 Ind. 398, 47 N.E.2d 976; Kemper v. Metzger (1907), 169 Ind. 112, 119, 81 N.E. 663. To determine whether or not the court committed error in sustaining the exceptions, it is necessary to construe chapter 335 of the Acts of 1945 (Acts 1945, p. 1569; § 22-4201 et seq., Burns' 1950 Replacement), and *260 all other laws relating thereto. Dowd, Warden v. Johnston, supra.
Appellee contends that the title of chapter 335 of the Acts of 1945 is not broad enough to give to the Indiana Council for Mental Health the right to transfer patients from one institution to another or from one hospital to another. The last-cited title reads as follows:
The title covers a general subject  "An Act Concerning Mental Cases, Creating the Indiana Council for Mental Health and Prescribing its Powers and Duties." The title need not contain an index or abstract of the act. DeHaven v. Municipal City of South Bend (1937), 212 Ind. 194, 7 N.E.2d 184; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Braxtan (1905), 165 Ind. 165, 168, 74 N.E. 985. The title is broad and general enough to include the subject of the transfer of psychiatric patients from one hospital to another or from one institution to another. Barber Grocery Co., Inc., et al. v. Fleming, etc., et al. (1951), 229 Ind. 140, 96 N.E.2d 108. The title of this act is not in violation of Art. 4, § 19, of our State Constitution.
Does chapter 335 of the Acts of 1945 vest in the Indiana Council for Mental Health the right to transfer a patient from the Indiana Village for Epileptics to the Indiana Hospital for Insane Criminals? It is to be noted in appellee's petition for habeas corpus that appellee was admitted to the Indiana Village for Epileptics in January, 1946, for treatment. From the petition and the answer and return it is shown that appellee was admitted to the Indiana Village for *261 Epileptics, as provided under § 22-2012, Burns' 1950 Replacement, which provides for a hearing before a judge of a circuit court, and for the entering of an order of commitment if it shall appear to the judge that the person is afflicted with epilepsy. This having been done, appellee became a ward of the State of Indiana; and, as provided in § 22-2017, Burns' 1950 Replacement:
It is further provided, under § 22-2018, Burns' 1950 Replacement:
The powers and duties of the Indiana Council for Mental Health are defined in chapter 335 of the Acts of 1945, as amended by chapter 67 of the Acts of 1947 (Acts 1947, § 1, p. 215), being § 22-4202, Burns' 1950 Replacement. Subsection (2) of the last-cited act defines the term "psychiatric patient," and provides that the Council is:
It is further provided by subsection (6) of the last-cited act that the Council shall have the power and duty:
In the action before this court, the appellee comes within the definition of a psychiatric patient.[1] The Legislature gave to the Indiana Council for Mental Health the broad powers of transferring psychiatric patients in state hospitals and institutions from one such hospital or institution to another. Therefore, if appellee was properly transferred from the Indiana Village for Epileptics to the Indiana Hospital for Insane Criminals, it was done with legislative authority. The amended return and answer of appellant sets out that appellee was transferred from the Indiana Village for Epileptics by virtue of a transfer order dated May 7, 1949, issued by the Indiana Council for Mental Health. The transfer was executed for and on behalf of the Council by its Acting Director, under the seal of the Council. On its face, this transfer meets the requirements of the statute, and it was not necessary to allege in the return and answer that the Acting Director had authority to execute this transfer for and on behalf of the Council.
Appellee, in his brief, contends that the Indiana Hospital for Insane Criminals is a penal institution, created by chapter 87 of the Acts of 1909 (Acts 1909, p. 202; § 13-301 et seq., Burns' 1942 Replacement). This last-cited statute creates a hospital for the treatment of insane criminals to be erected on land belonging to the State and set apart for the use of the Indiana State Prison. The Legislature *263 had a right to authorize the transfer of psychiatric patients to the Indiana Hospital for Insane Criminals, or authorize the use of this hospital for other patients or other purposes. The Legislature created the Indiana Hospital for Insane Criminals as a hospital, and we cannot presume that the persons charged with the care of patients committed to this hospital will not carry out their duties. It is presumed that a public administrator acts in good faith, with honest motives, for the purpose of promoting the public good and protecting the public interest. We presume therefore that the officials of the Indiana Hospital for Insane Criminals are carrying out their duties for the good of the public and the good of the patients until the contrary is shown.
Appellee further argues that his transfer was in violation of due process. This was not a violation of either the Constitution of Indiana or the Federal Constitution. Due process was afforded to appellee at the time he was committed to the Indiana Village for Epileptics. If the Indiana Council for Mental Health determines that a psychiatric patient can best be treated by being transferred to the Indiana Hospital for Insane Criminals, the transfer is not in violation of due process, since the transfer is an administrative and discretionary act authorized by the Legislature.[2] The transfer does not make appellee a criminal, nor subject to confinement as a criminal, but, as a psychiatric patient, he is transferred for the benefit of himself and the public.
It was error for the court to sustain the exceptions.
*264 Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Gilkison, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.
GILKISON, J.
I concur in the opinion in so far as it holds that either party to the action is entitled to a change of judge upon proper application therefor, timely filed and presented. A denial of this right to appellant by the trial court constitutes reversible error, which may properly be presented on appeal.
I also concur in the opinion that the proper authorities may transfer an epileptic patient from the Indiana Village for Epileptics to another benevolent institution should occasion require but I rather violently disagree with the opinion that such a patient may be transferred from one institution to another when the institution to which the patient is so transferred is a penal institution.
Epilepsy is not a crime. On the contrary it is a disease with which many excellent people are affected. Many persons so affected are never hospitalized but continue to live and work in their respective field notwithstanding their affliction. Ancient instances of these are Saul, first King of Israel, and Julius Caesar. Our state determined to establish the Epileptic Village in 1905; the purpose of the institution is expressed in Section 1 of the Act as follows:
As shown by this statute the purpose of the establishment of the Epileptic Village is, "the scientific treatment, education, employment and custody of epileptics, ..." These are wholly benevolent purposes  they are not penal. The ancient idea that an epileptic patient is possessed of a devil, and the treatment prescribed that it must be beaten out of him, ceased to exist long ago. I do not think it is advisable to revive it now.
The Master Christian's position with respect to epileptics is well expressed by his first disciple thus:
This, I think, expresses the Christian thought. It was the evident intent of the Legislature to carry out this thought when it established the Indiana Village for Epileptics. It is an important duty of every department of government in the state and nation to see that this intent is not destroyed by erroneous rulings of administrative officers, and erroneous constructions by courts.
In 1909 our state established the "hospital for insane criminals." The title of the Act is as follows:
The purpose of the institution is expressed in §§ 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Act as follows:
From these sections of the statute it is apparent that the Indiana hospital for insane criminals is but a part of the Indiana State Prison. No one will say that a prison is a benevolent institution. Persons are committed to that institution only for the "punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." Art. 1, § 37, Indiana Constitution.
From the benevolent purposes of the Indiana Village for Epileptics to the penal purposes of the Indiana hospital for insane criminals is a lengthy step indeed, and transfer of epileptic patients from the former to be prisoners in the latter can be made lawfully only *268 in the manner and form as provided by the Constitution and laws of the State. The State Constitution provides:
One who is sent to the Indiana Village for Epileptics loses none of his rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness declared by our constitution; he retains all these rights, and because of his disease he gets the additional right of "scientific treatment, education, employment and custody." The right of custody granted is not unlimited. It must be reasonably exercised to accomplish the purposes designed, which are treatment, education, and employment.
The declared rights under the Indiana Constitution heretofore noted, and the rights of all persons under Section 1, Amendment 14 of the United States Constitution as follows:
are absolutely binding upon each department of our state government. These rights must be upheld with complete impartiality with respect to epileptics.
A statute in Indiana, which the opinion does not mention but which is the basis for the transfer of appellee to the state prison, provides:
By this statute an attempt is made to authorize transferring patients from the benevolent institutions named therein to the Indiana State Prison, under the name "Indiana Hospital for Insane Criminals at Michigan City." It seeks to justify this action by the hocus pocus proceedings named in the statute quoted. I am *270 aware that any person may be sent to the state prison, when he has been properly charged with the commission of a specific crime in a court of competent jurisdiction, has had a fair trial agreeable with the constitutions of the state and nation, and has been found and adjudged guilty, and sentenced agreeable with the law. But no man may ever be sent to the Indiana State Prison "on account of homicidal and criminalistic habits and tendencies to a degree requiring prison surroundings and protection of life or property," as stated in this statute. The proceeding by which this unlawful result is accomplished is remarkable because of its simplicity. It is accomplished "by the mutual understanding and consent of the warden and superintendent of the respective institutions, and with the approval of the governor, and not otherwise." In this manner the statute noted seeks to destroy appellee's Creator given, constitutionally guaranteed natural rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But our constitutions are the supreme law of the state, binding alike upon governors, legislatures, courts and the people and the statute involved is clearly unconstitutional and void, being in contravention of § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and of §§ 37, 12, 13 and 14, Art. 1 of the Constitution of Indiana hereinbefore noted.
The opinion is in error in stating that "appellee became a ward of the state of Indiana;" on the contrary he became a patient of the state to receive "scientific treatment, education and employment." For these ends only the state is given his custody. Under the constitutions of the state and nation it may not abuse this right of custody, or use it for any purposes whatever other than those specifically named in the statute  as last above noted.
*271 It is quite erroneous to say that the necessary legal process to qualify one suffering from epilepsy to secure the benevolent and beneficial "scientific treatment, education, employment and custody" provided by the state for its unfortunate epileptics, is the same due process that the state must take in order to take away the natural liberties of an individual and confine him in the State Prison. It is extremely difficult to follow the reasoning that reaches such a result. To me the process of reasoning necessarily followed is intellectually immoral and I am wholly unable to agree thereto.
The appellee in this case is not a criminal. So far as shown by the record he has never been charged with the commission of a crime. He has had no trial before either court or jury and of course, no judgment has been rendered against him. The order of court committing him to the Indiana Village for Epileptics is not a criminal judgment, and it, in no manner, authorizes any administrative officer or court to sentence him to the State Prison. Any such action by any such administrative officers or courts is a direct violation of appellee's rights under the State and Federal Constitutions heretofore noted.
The opinion attempts a construction of Chapter 335, Acts 1945 as amended by Chapter 67, Acts 1947, being § 22-4202, Burns' 1950 Replacement. Section 2, Cl. 6 of this statute gives the Indiana Council for Mental Health authority "to transfer psychiatric patients in state hospitals and institutions for the care of such patients, from one such hospital or institution to another." There is nothing in this act even indicating any intent on the part of the legislature to authorize the transfer of such patients from the benevolent care of such hospitals to the penal care of the prisons. If this statute attempted to authorize such a transfer *272 it would be a contravention of the constitutions noted and therefore void. However, by the peculiar reasoning of the opinion, this statute is said to authorize such a transfer. I think the opinion thus does the statute an injustice. It is the opinion that seeks to authorize such a transfer, not the statute, and so it is the opinion that violates the constitutions of both the state and the nation  not the statute.
Until the opinion in the instant case it has always been the law in Indiana, that:
The opinion ignores the clear and unambiguous terms of the statute creating the Hospital for Insane Criminals  the title of five sections of which are quoted in full in this dissent. The opinion takes the position that because it is called a "hospital" the court may ignore the qualifying words "for insane criminals" and *273 allow any epileptic to be sent to that so-called hospital, notwithstanding the fact that the constitutions of the state and nation forbid such action. I am unable to follow this reasoning.
We may not by a pretended construction legislate something into the statute that the legislature withheld therefrom. An old but thoroughly dependable rule of statutory construction is as follows:
The opinion seems to violate all the rules of construction noted to accomplish a direct violation of appellee's natural rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and to deny him the due course of law and due process of law guaranteed him by the state and national constitutions. Since appellee is but one of many Indiana epileptics, who by the same unlawful process without trial and without even a pretense of guilt have been dumped into the State Prison Hospital for Criminal Insane, not for treatment but merely for permanent custody, it is to be hoped that relief for these unfortunates may be found.
On this feature of the case, I think the judgment of the trial court is correct.
NOTE.  Reported in 96 N.E.2d 902.
[1]  See 2 Gray's Attorneys' Textbook of Medicine (Epilepsy), 3rd Ed., p. 1046, and Herzog Medical Jurisprudence (Epilepsy).
[2]  See Cushman v. Hussey (1918), 187 Ind. 228, 118 N.E. 816, and Board of Com'rs of Dearborn County v. Droege (1946), 224 Ind. 446, 68 N.E.2d 650.