168 F. 635 (4th Cir. 1909), 813, Haddox v. Richardson

Docket Nº813.
Citation168 F. 635
Party NameHADDOX, Warden, v. RICHARDSON.
Case DateMarch 13, 1909
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Page 635

168 F. 635 (4th Cir. 1909)

HADDOX, Warden,

v.

RICHARDSON.

No. 813.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

March 13, 1909

Reese Blizzard, U.S. Atty., and William R. Harr, for appellant.

Before GOFF and PRITCHARD, Circuit Judges, and BOYD, District Judge.

BOYD, District Judge.

This case presents the question whether a person convicted in a court of the United States and sentenced to imprisonment in a penitentiary at labor and to pay a fine can, after the expiration of the term of imprisonment, and failure to pay the fine because of inability, be detained in the penitentiary under the provisions of sections 1042 and 5296 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 724, 3608). The appellee, Frank S. Richardson (with another) was indicted and convicted in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia for conspiracy under section 5440, Rev. St. (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3676). Richardson

Page 636

was sentenced to imprisonment at labor for two years in a penitentiary to be designated by the Attorney General of the United States, and to pay a fine of $10,000, and, in default of payment of the fine, to stand further committed until paid.

The penitentiary of the state of West Virginia at Moundsville, in said state, was designated by the Attorney General for the execution of the sentence. Richardson was delivered to the penitentiary authorities on the 17th day of February, 1906, on which date his term of imprisonment began, and he continued in the said penitentiary undergoing the sentence until the 25th day of September, 1907, on which last-named date the term expired (credit being extended to the prisoner under the statute for good behavior). Richardson was still detained in the penitentiary after the 25th day of September, 1907, until October 3, 1907, when he filed his petition before the Honorable Alston G. Dayton, District Judge of the United States for the Northern district of West Virginia, sitting in Circuit Court of the United States for the said district in term at Clarksburg, in said state, for habeas corpus. The petition alleged that Richardson, the petitioner, was imprisoned and unlawfully restrained of his liberty by Charles E. Haddox, warden of the West Virginia penitentiary. The alleged illegality of the imprisonment is particularly set forth in the petition as follows:

'That your petitioner is now, and ever since September 25, 1907, has been, held in custody by the said warden in the said penitentiary solely for default of payment of said fine; that the said fine is the maximum prescribed by the said section 5440; that the said term of imprisonment which your petitioner has fully suffered is the maximum prescribed by the said law; that your petitioner is utterly unable to pay the fine in whole or in part, and has no prospects of ever being able to do so; that his suffering of the said maximum term of imprisonment is a bar to the collection of said fine, even if your petitioner were able to pay it; that the said court had no jurisdiction whatever to sentence your petitioner to be further confined in the said penitentiary or any penitentiary, either with or without labor, merely for default in the payment of said fine; that there is not now and never has been any law whatever authorizing the said court or any federal court to sentence any person to the penitentiary except for the sole purpose of serving the term of imprisonment as such prescribed by the statute in question, but never merely for default in payment of a fine imposed, and the said term of imprisonment as such must be for a term longer than one year (unless the statute requires hard labor), and not otherwise; that the said sentence that your petitioner stand committed at labor in the said penitentiary further than the said maximum term of two years for default in payment of said fine is null and void, because it is in violation and excess of the laws of the United States, and subjects your petitioner to an infamous punishment at hard labor for the mere nonpayment of a fine; that the said section 5440 is silent as to labor, but nevertheless the said court, without authority, sentenced your petitioner to be 'kept at labor' in said penitentiary for the whole of the said maximum term of two years, and further until the said fine be paid, and your petitioner has in fact been subjected to and kept at hard labor therein for the said term, and ever since the said September 25, 1907, your petitioner has been and still is subject to and kept at hard labor in the said penitentiary solely for default in payment of said fine; that the said sentence that your petitioner stand further committed at labor in the said penitentiary until the said fine be paid is also null and void for indefiniteness, in that the term of such commitment is unlimited, but is in effect for the term of his natural life, because there is no law under which he can be discharged from the penitentiary on account of his inability to pay the said fine by reason of his poverty, the law relating to such charges being restricted exclusively to the cases of imprisonment in jails, and not extending to cases of imprisonment in a penitentiary, for the

Page 637

reason that imprisonment in a penitentiary, either with or without labor, for the mere nonpayment of a fine, is wholly unauthorized by the law of the United States.'

The writ was issued as prayed for by Richardson in his petition, and served upon the appellant, Charles E. Haddox, warden of the West Virginia penitentiary. Haddox made return and answer to the writ as follows:

'Comes now the respondent, Charles E. Haddox, warden of the West Virginia penitentiary, and, submitting to the jurisdiction of this court in the premises, for answer to the petition of Frank S. Richardson in the cause filed, certifies and says that the true cause of the respondent's detention of the petitioner is the original paper writing, a correct copy of which is set out in the ninth paragraph of the said petition, and that under the said paper writing the respondent now detains the petitioner solely for his default in payment of the fine imposed upon him by the sentence of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • 75 A.2d 845 (D.C. 1950), 956, Peeples v. District of Columbia
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • October 11, 1950
    ...Columbia, D.C.Mun.App., 33 A.2d 629. [4] Pierce v. United States, 255 U.S. 398, 41 S.Ct. 365, 65 L.Ed. 697; Haddox v. Richardson, 4 Cir., 168 F. 635; Ex parte Barclay, C.C.Me., 153 F. 669. [5] Anderson v. District of Columbia, D.C.Mun.App., 48 A.2d 710. [6] Peterson v. United States, 9 Cir.......
  • 10 F.Supp. 609 (D.Md. 1935), 17112, United States v. Wampler
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 4th Circuit District of Maryland
    • April 24, 1935
    ...737, 24 L.Ed. 877; In re Greenwald (C.C.Cal. 1896) 77 F. 590; Ex parte Barclay (C.C.Me. 1907) 153 F. 669; Haddox v. Richardson (C.C.A. 4) 168 F. 635; Allen v. Clark (C.C.A. 4) 126 F. 738; Chapman v. United States (C.C.A. 5) 10 F. (2d) 124, certiorari denied 271 U.S. 667, 46 S.Ct. 482, 70 L.......
  • 297 F. 509 (S.D.Cal. 1924), 872, Ex parte Garrison
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 9th Circuit Southern District of California
    • March 14, 1924
    ...statutes. If such power were not possessed impecunious and recalcitrant offenders would go completely unpunished. Haddox v. Richardson, 168 F. 635, 639, 94 C.C.A. 99. Such would be the result of petitioner's wrongdoing were his contentions as to the construction of the California statutes t......
  • 160 N.W. 858 (Minn. 1917), 20,269, State ex rel. Bond v. Langum
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court of Minnesota
    • January 11, 1917
    ...custody of respondent does not prevent the latter from again apprehending him under the warrant already in his hands. Haddox v. Richardson, 168 F. 635. The only question presented by the testimony is whether it clearly appears that Era Bond is not a fugitive from justice, and that depends u......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • 75 A.2d 845 (D.C. 1950), 956, Peeples v. District of Columbia
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • October 11, 1950
    ...Columbia, D.C.Mun.App., 33 A.2d 629. [4] Pierce v. United States, 255 U.S. 398, 41 S.Ct. 365, 65 L.Ed. 697; Haddox v. Richardson, 4 Cir., 168 F. 635; Ex parte Barclay, C.C.Me., 153 F. 669. [5] Anderson v. District of Columbia, D.C.Mun.App., 48 A.2d 710. [6] Peterson v. United States, 9 Cir.......
  • 10 F.Supp. 609 (D.Md. 1935), 17112, United States v. Wampler
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 4th Circuit District of Maryland
    • April 24, 1935
    ...737, 24 L.Ed. 877; In re Greenwald (C.C.Cal. 1896) 77 F. 590; Ex parte Barclay (C.C.Me. 1907) 153 F. 669; Haddox v. Richardson (C.C.A. 4) 168 F. 635; Allen v. Clark (C.C.A. 4) 126 F. 738; Chapman v. United States (C.C.A. 5) 10 F. (2d) 124, certiorari denied 271 U.S. 667, 46 S.Ct. 482, 70 L.......
  • 297 F. 509 (S.D.Cal. 1924), 872, Ex parte Garrison
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 9th Circuit Southern District of California
    • March 14, 1924
    ...statutes. If such power were not possessed impecunious and recalcitrant offenders would go completely unpunished. Haddox v. Richardson, 168 F. 635, 639, 94 C.C.A. 99. Such would be the result of petitioner's wrongdoing were his contentions as to the construction of the California statutes t......
  • 160 N.W. 858 (Minn. 1917), 20,269, State ex rel. Bond v. Langum
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court of Minnesota
    • January 11, 1917
    ...custody of respondent does not prevent the latter from again apprehending him under the warrant already in his hands. Haddox v. Richardson, 168 F. 635. The only question presented by the testimony is whether it clearly appears that Era Bond is not a fugitive from justice, and that depends u......
  • Request a trial to view additional results