Clasby v. Hampton

• Decision Date: 22 June 1882
• Citation: 1 P. 852,3 Utah 183
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: IN RE CLASBY

1 P. 852

3 Utah 183

IN RE CLASBY

Supreme Court of Utah

June 22, 1882

APPEAL from the third district court. The opinion states the facts.

Appeal dismissed.

Z. Snow and Sheeks & Rawlins, for the appellants.

No brief on file.

Arthur Brown, for the respondent.

Respondent alleges that there is no appeal given to the person that is seeking to arrest him. The act of habeas corpus of the territory of Utah is a copy of the California statute, and no appeal has ever been allowed under that act: In re Parsons, 2 Cal. 430; People v. Selvester, 40 Id. 627.

The theory of the law on that subject is this: The person having the custody of the petitioner has no right of appeal, because he can have no beneficial interest or right in the imprisonment of petitioner. The applicant has no right of appeal, because in all cases he may apply at once, by another original writ, to the appellate court itself, there being no such thing as res adjudicata in such cases: Cases above cited.

TWISS J. HUNTER, C. J., and EMERSON, J., concurred.

OPINION

TWISS, J.:

The respondent, being arrested and brought before Alex. C. Pyper a justice of the peace in Salt Lake City, upon a warrant charging him with the unlawful sale of spirituous liquors without obtaining a license from the county of Salt Lake for the sale of the same, made application to the judge of the third district court for a writ of habeas corpus which was granted, and made returnable before the third district court, to which return was made by the defendant the constable making the arrest, that the plaintiff was held by him under and by virtue of said warrant and order of said justice of the peace.

On the hearing of the parties upon the writ and return thereof, the court ordered the discharge of the plaintiff, from which the defendant and the people of the territory of Utah appealed to this court.

Two questions are raised by the arguments of counsel: 1. Was the plaintiff rightfully discharged by the court below? 2. Have the appellants the right of appeal to this court?

If the appeal is not rightfully here, we need go no further in the case; the first question, whether correctly decided by the court below or not, is not essential to a disposal of the appeal in this court.

In the case of Wythe v. Richardson, 10 Gray 240, Shaw, C. J., in the opinion of the court, says: "The great purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is the immediate delivery of the party deprived of personal liberty. The allowance of exceptions would be inconsistent with the object of the writ. The consequence of allowing exceptions would be inconsistent with the writ. The consequence of allowing exceptions must be either that all further proceedings be stayed, which would be wholly inconsistent with the purpose of the writ, or that the exceptions must be held frivolous and judgment non abstante for the discharge of the party, in which case the exceptions would be unavailing. The allowance of the exceptions would be unavailing. The allowance of the exceptions being thus inconsistent with the very purpose of the writ, the conclusion must be that the exceptions do not lie."

The provisions of section 1553 of the complied laws, that an appeal may be taken from a final judgment in an action or special proceeding commenced in the court in which the judgment is recorded, and of the organic act, that writs of error, bills of exception, and appeals shall be allowed in all cases from final decisions of said district courts to the supreme court, do not give the defendant and the people of this territory the right of appeal in this case.

By sections 1144 and 1145 of the compiled laws, it is provided that the court or judge shall proceed in a summary manner to settle the facts by hearing the testimony and arguments of the parties interested, and shall dispose of the prisoner...