Year: 1876

to make return to the writ of habeas cor
Fue, alleging matter sufficient to justify
the party's restraint, yet false in fact, there
was no means, by proceeding under the
writ, Of obtaining relief See Halls Con.
His Eng., page sol. In conducting the
proceeding under the writ, the judges in
quired no further than as to the truth of
the facts alleged in the answer of the officer.
If they found them untrue in reality, or
even OF doubtful certainty, the prisoner
was released in their discretion. Now whc.
are the controlling features and facts of
this case? First, the imprisonment, and Sec
ond the sherift's authority for holding the
relatOrs in custody


Article l3l. Code of Practice. declares that
"the judges of the Supreme Court, district
and parish courts, have the power to punish
all cOntempts of their authority by fine not
exceeding $50, and by imprisonment for q
period not exceeding ten days for each
offense Of that kind" Now it is very clear
that the Superior District Court has au-
thOrity to punish c0ntempts of it's authority.
Now. was it invested with authority to issue
writs Of Injunction? Article 296, Code of
Practice, defines what the writ is. and
clearly gives to any one who may make the
proper allegations and affidavit and tender
q sufficient bond. the benefit of it's protec-
tiOn and an absolute right to it. The Su-
periOr District COul ], then, had authority to
issue writs Of injunction. 1t then follows
that it had power to vindicate it by punish
ing for contempt.


have referred to the numerous authOri-
ties tending to establish the fact that it had
been divested OF all authority by the fling
of petition and bond for the transfer to
the Circuit Court of the Unite States.
need not express any opinion on this point,
as it must be apparent that l can not be
msde an umpi.s to eettle question of
jurisdiction between these courts. IF the
Superior District Court has exercised au-
thOrity in q matter wherein it had ce lsed
to have jurie lictiOn. it's action is certainly
coram non jatdiee. But whether it be or not
is q question THE court is not authorized to
investigate. There are other remedies ex-
I essly provided by Law.


ton in the Injunction, but this is not court
of review, and, therefore, any decision it
might render in the matter would be nuga-
tory. and more particularly 60 as that ques.
ton is not before me in any other than q
collateral form. The doctrine has been too
we'll settled that even the Supreme Court
will not venture t. annul judgments in q
collateral issue. As it never was the pur-
pogo of the law to authorize judges, in the
summary proceeding under habeas corpus,
to go beyond the facts set up in the return
"
and as thsy are limited to an inquiry
as to the truth or faisity of those facts,
I do not consider the Code in using
the word jurisdiction, intended any
thing more than that the examining court
should ascertain fir om the commitment it.
self whether the o.icer had sufficient war
rant for tanning the relat0rs in custody.
Indeed. thi- is all he is require by the no
tics served on him to do. He is not re-
quired to come forward and vindicate the
authority of the court under whose au
thority he fcts. If the commitment is de-
fe ,tive in any particular the examining
court may 90 declare, whatever the defect
may be. II, on its face, it shows that the
Superior District Court has committed the
parties for that which is no Offense, or if it
has committed them for q greater length OF
time than the law authorized, relief may
be granted under q habeas corpus. Bat il
it appears that it erred in its opinion in the
construction of laws, it is not my province
lied and constituted for that purpose, and
to it the parties must resort.


1t always affords me great pleasure to re-
lieve parties, when it can be done consist.
emily with my view of the law; but in this
case can see no relief which can afford
If, indeed, had a doubt on the subject
which would apply to the benefit of the
relators, the order for release would only
prove delusive to their hopes. for there is nc
power in this to prevent the Superior Court
from issuing new writs and commitments
by and under which these parties nigh,
again be imprisoned just as often as they
might be declared illegal. If the judge ol
that court has willfully and wantonly abused
his power to the injury of the relators, they
have their remedy by direct action, for hi
is not beyond the reach of the civil arm any
more than the most obscure individual il
the community.


The writ must be refused.