290 S.W. 103 (Mo.App. 1927), Ex Parte Chambers

Citation:290 S.W. 103, 221 Mo.App. 64
Opinion Judge:BAILEY, J.
Attorney:Page & Barrett and J. H. Bowron for petitioner. I. W. Mayfield & Son for respondent.
Judge Panel:BAILEY, J. Cox, P. J., and Bradley, J., concur. Cox, P. J., and Bradley, J., concur.
Case Date:January 07, 1927
Court:Court of Appeals of Missouri

Page 103

290 S.W. 103 (Mo.App. 1927)

221 Mo.App. 64


Court of Appeals of Missouri

January 7, 1927

Original petition for writ of Habeas Corpus.


Page & Barrett and J. H. Bowron for petitioner.

I. W. Mayfield & Son for respondent.

BAILEY, J. Cox, P. J., and Bradley, J., concur.


Page 104

[221 Mo.App. 65] BAILEY, J.

The petitioner, Jasper Chambers, made application to this court for writ of habeas corpus on the 14th day of September, 1926. Our preliminary writ was forthwith issued and made returnable on the 4th day of October, 1926. The petitioner filed a recognizance September 14, 1926, and was thereupon ordered released from custody pending the hearing on the preliminary writ of habeas corpus. The petition for the writ avers that the petitioner is unlawfully deprived of his liberty by J. W. Wyrick Sheriff of Pulaski county, Missouri; that on March 18, 1925, judgment was rendered against him in the circuit court of that county for costs incurred in a certain proceeding tried in said court wherein petitioner was adjudged to enter into a peace bond on the complaint of one, T. A. Shockley; that he furnished the required bond and was discharged, but failed to pay the costs; that on the--day of September, 1926, there was issued out of the office of the circuit clerk a capias execution directed to sheriff commanding him to imprison petitioner on account of non-payment of said costs; that by virtue of said commitment, the sheriff is now "restraining him of his liberty."

The petitioner further avers that the imprisonment is illegal in that Article 3, of Chapter 25, Revised Statutes 1919, under which the proceeding was heard and in which said costs accrued, is not in the nature of a criminal proceeding and does not authorize imprisonment for costs of any person found guilty thereunder but only makes [221 Mo.App. 66] such person liable for such costs and, therefore, the petitioner is being imprisoned for the non-payment of a debt.

Respondent, by his return, denies petitioner is illegally detained or that he is imprisoned for a debt. Respondent further recites the judgment of conviction requiring petitioner to give a peace bond, which judgment was affirmed on appeal to this court (278 S.W. 817); that petitioner is confined by process issued by the court and delivered...

To continue reading