Commonwealth v. Murphy

• Decision Date: 03 March 1911
• Docket Number: 127-1910,126-1910
• Parties: Commonwealth ex rel. v. Murphy (No. 1)
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

45 Pa.Super. 185

Commonwealth ex rel. v. Murphy (No. 1)

Nos. 126-1910, 127-1910

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

March 3, 1911

Argued October 6, 1910 [Syllabus Matter] [Syllabus Matter]

Petition for habeas corpus in suits of Commonwealth ex rel. William J. Jones and William E. Grow v. Patrick J. Murphy, Sheriff of Schuylkill County, and James Walton, Warden of the Schuylkill County Prison.

Petitions for writ of habeas corpus.

The petition to the Superior Court for the writ of habeas corpus was as follows:

" On September 2, 1909, your relator, and the four other election officers of the William Penn polling district of West Mahanoy Township, Schuylkill County, were arrested for making a false return and making a false list of voters at the primary election of June 5th, 1909. Your relator was indicted on November 8th, 1909, on two charges, in indictments Nos. 1409 and 1409-A of September Term, 1909. At the November Term of court each of the other four election officers were separately indicted, in two separate bills for each, for the same offenses, growing out of the same primary election. The cases of all five defendants were called for trial together on Friday, March 11th, 1910, in the Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace, before Judge C. N. Brumm, one of the three Common Pleas Judges of Schuylkill County. Counsel for both the Commonwealth and for the defense asked for a separate trial for each defendant. But notwithstanding the fact that there were five defendants, each indicted for two offenses, making ten indictments in all, the application of both the Commonwealth and the defense for separate trials, was overruled, and the several defendants were compelled to go to trial together. They were all convicted on both indictments, respectively, on March 15th, 1910. The only substantial reason presented in the motion in arrest of judgment and for a new trial, was the fact that the Court had refused the defendants separate trials. This motion was overruled on April 18th, 1910; and on the same day sentence was imposed on your relator under indictment and conviction No. 1409, for making a false return -- which sentence was, one dollar fine, costs, three years' imprisonment in the Schuylkill County Jail, and depriving him of the right of suffrage absolutely for a term of four years."

After his sentence, petitioner for the first time employed counsel, who prepared a petition for him, a copy of which is hereto attached (marked exhibit " A" ), and presented the same to the trial judge, C. N. Brumm, on April 28, 1910, praying the court, inter alia, to permit him to establish the truth of all the allegations set out in the petition, and to revoke the sentence passed upon him on Monday, April 18, 1910. The trial judge fixed Saturday, April 30, 1910, at eleven A. M. for a hearing on said petition. At that hearing all the counsel representing the commonwealth and the defense at the trial, and the counsel who presented the petition, were present. The trial judge sat during the morning and afternoon sessions, until after four o'clock P. M., and then made the following order:

" And now, April 30, 1910, the Court having heard the testimony of William Jones and William Grow and Mrs. Grow, taken under cross-examination in the presence of all the counsel concerned, both for the Commonwealth and the defense, and after argument of counsel, and the motion being made and action taken within the term in which they were convicted and sentenced, the Court now revoke the sentence passed upon the said Jones and Grow on April 18, 1910, and suspend sentence in the case in which they were sentenced, until I have an opportunity to consult with my colleagues on the matter, and that they each enter into bail to be approved of by Court, in the sum of five thousand dollars.

" We wish to add to that, we do this because it is now fifteen minutes after four o'clock on Saturday, the thirtieth day of April, the last day of the term."

The same day bail was perfected in accordance with the said order, in the sum of $ 5,000; and on the following day your relator was released from custody.

Judges Arthur L. Shay and H. O. Bechtel, the other two common pleas judges, on Monday, May 9, 1910 -- neither of whom had any part in the trial of petitioner, and neither of whom heard the testimony presented at the hearing on April 30 -- each handed down an opinion, copies of which are hereto attached (marked exhibits " B" and " C" ), making the following order:

" And now, May 9, 1910, the order of Judge Brumm of April 30th, 1910, revoking the sentence of William Jones and William Grow, passed and entered by this Court on Monday, April 18th, 1910, is set aside, the rule is discharged and the sentence is reinstated as though the above order were never made, and the High Sheriff of Schuylkill County is directed and ordered to take into his custody forthwith the said William Jones and William Grow and deliver them into the possession of the warden of the Schuylkill County Prison for the fulfillment of the sentence imposed. By the Court. Arthur L. Shay, P. J.; H. O. Bechtel, A. L. J."

On the same day that Judges Shay and Bechtel made the order directing the sheriff to remand the prisoner to jail, in pursuance of that order the sheriff returned your relator to jail, where he is still detained unlawfully.

The trial judge, C. N. Brumm, on Monday, May 16, 1910, handed down his opinion (hereto attached, marked exhibit " D" ), and made the following order theron:

" I therefore insist that the order made by me to revoke these sentences, shall stand and that these defendants shall be released under bail until their cases are finally disposed of under said order. C. N. Brumm, J. C. P."

" Your petitioner is informed and believes that the trial judge who imposed the sentence and heard his petition for a revocation of sentence, and whose conscience was moved to revoke the sentence before the next succeeding term, acted within his legal prerogative and right, and that his order of April 30, 1910, and the reaffirmation of the same on May 16, 1910, entitles your petitioner to his liberty in accordance with the said orders and under the provisions thereof.

" The other two common pleas judges, who had taken no part in the trial, had not heard any of the testimony at the trial or hearing on the petition for revocation of sentence, had no jurisdiction to direct the sheriff to seize your relator and return him to the county jail, where the sheriff unlawfully took him, and where he is now unlawfully detained, in the custody of the warden of the said jail. The said sheriff and warden refuse to obey the said order of the trial judge, directing them to admit your relator to bail as aforesaid.

" Therefore, your relator prays the court to award a writ of habeas corpus against the said Patrick J. Murphy, sheriff of Schuylkill county, and James Walton, warden of the Schuylkill County Prison, returnable forthwith, that cause may be shown why your relator should not be discharged and set free, as per order of the said trial judge; and that your relator may be brought before your honors, to do, submit to, and receive what the laws may require."

On the above petition the writs of habeas corpus were awarded and the relators were released under bail.

Prisoner remanded.

Wm. Wilhelm, with him E. J. Maginnis, for relators, cited: Greason's Petition, 205 Pa. 630; Webster v. Coal & Coke Co., 201 Pa. 278; Com. v. Gabor, 209 Pa. 201; O'Donnell v. Flanigan, 9 Pa.Super. 136; Com. v. Leonard, 15 York, 25; Carroll v. Com., 84 Pa. 107; Com. v. Thompson, 18 Pa. C.C. 487; Com. v. Zimmerman, 19 Pa. Dist. 248.

W. F Lyons, district attorney, and G. E. Farquhar with him, for the commonwealth, cited: Williams v. Com., 29 Pa. 102; Briceland v. Com., 74 Pa. 463; Com. v. Mayloy, 57 Pa. 291; Horton v. Miller, 38 Pa. 270; Cherry Twp. Overseers v. Marion Twp. Overseers, 96 Pa. 528; Com. v. Dunleavy, 16 Pa.Super. 380; Cahill v. Benn, 6 Binn. 99; Madlem's App., 103 Pa. 584; Butts v. Armor, 164 Pa. 73; Myers v. Coal Co....