Com. & Bd. of Prison Comrs. v. Crumbaugh

• Decision Date: 26 September 1917
• Citation: 176 Ky. 720
• Parties: Commonwealth and Board of Prison Commissioners, et al. v. Crumbaugh, Police Judge of the City of Eddyville.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

176 Ky. 720

Commonwealth and Board of Prison Commissioners, et al. v. Crumbaugh, Police Judge of the City of Eddyville.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Decided September 26, 1917.

CHARLES H. MORRIS, Attorney General, and OVERTON S. HOGAN, Assistant Attorney General, for petitioners.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY CHIEF JUSTICE SETTLE — Granting writ of prohibition.

This case is before us upon petition of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Board of Prison Commissioners and warden of the State Reformatory at Eddyville, praying a writ of prohibition against the respondent, W. L. Crumbaugh, police judge of the city of Eddyville, to prevent him from further proceeding upon a writ of habeas corpus issued by him at the instance of John Wells, a former paroled convict, to compel John B. Chilton, warden of the State Reformatory at Eddyville, to produce before him the body of Wells that he may inquire into the cause and legality of his detention in the reformatory. A temporary restraining order was heretofore entered as prayed and the case is now submitted to the court for final judgment.

It appears from the record before us that in September, 1905, John Wells was indicted for, tried, and, by verdict of a jury, convicted of murder in the Livingston circuit court, and his punishment fixed at confinement in the penitenitary for life, following which he was, in pursuance of the judgment and sentence of that court, confined in the State Reformatory at Eddyville until September 22, 1915, at which time the Board of Prison Commissioners granted and issued to him a parole. Among the rules and regulations adopted by the Board of Prison Commissioners is one requiring a paroled convict to report at stated intervals to the board and warden, showing whether he is engaged in any regular employment and giving the place of his residence. It is not denied by Wells or anyone for him that he wholly failed to comply with this rule. At the November term, 1915, of the Daviess circuit court Wells, while still on parole, was jointly indicted with another for the crime of robbery, but succeeded in evading arrest at the hands of the officers of the court, and, so far as the record before us appears, was never in the custody of the court under the indictment for robbery; but on account of his failure to comply with the above rule and regulation of the Board of Prison Commissioners as well as because of his indictment for the robbery mentioned, the board made and entered an order forfeiting the parole of Wells and issued a warrant of arrest for him, and for his return to and confinement in the Eddyville Reformatory, from which he had been paroled. His arrest under this warrant was effected March 19, 1916, and he was then delivered by order of the board to the warden of the reformatory, where he has since been confined. At the May term, 1916, of the Daviess circuit court, as appears from a copy of an order found in the record, the indictment against Wells in that court for robbery was dismissed by the Commonwealth's attorney, following the filing of a written statement by him, but as the record does not contain a copy of the written statement thus filed, and the order of the court disposing of the indictment does not indicate upon what ground it was stricken from the docket, we are not advised whether it was dismissed because of the inability of the Commonwealth to establish his guilt or because of his reincarceration in the reformatory, resulting from the violation of his parole.

The only grounds of resistance presented by the response of the police judge to the granting of the writ of prohibition asked by the petitioners are: First, that the Board of Prison Commissioners in determining without a judicial hearing that Wells had violated his parole and causing his arrest and reincarceration in the reformatory, exercised arbitrary power not conferred by the law; second, that Wells had a constitutional right to demand and respondent to issue in his behalf, the writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of inquiring into the cause of his reincarceration in the reformatory and determining whether he was thereby illegally...