Ex parte Cavitt, 24247.

• Decision Date: 25 October 1932
• Docket Number: 24247.
• Citation: 15 P.2d 276,170 Wash. 84
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: Ex parte CAVITT.

15 P.2d 276

170 Wash. 84

Ex parte CAVITT.

No. 24247.

Supreme Court of Washington

October 25, 1932

Department 2.

Original proceedings by Arthur Cavitt for writ of habeas corpus to secure release from the custody of the Sheriff of Clark County.

Writ granted.

R. H Back, of Vancouver, for petitioner.

Dale McMullen and Claude C. Snider, both of Vancouver, for respondent.

STEINERT J.

Upon the application of petitioner, Arthur Cavitt, who is being detained in the custody of the sheriff of Clark county Wash., an original writ of habeas corpus issued from this court, directing the sheriff to produce said Cavitt upon a day certain and to give the cause for his detention. On the return day the sheriff made answer to the writ, and at the same time filed his demurrer to the petition. The matter is now Before us for determination.

The facts are these: The petitioner having been convicted in the superior court for Clark county of the crime of unlawfully hunting for deer, judgment was entered sentencing him to thirty days' imprisonment in the county jail, and directing him to pay a fine of $300 and costs amounting to $46.35. The judgment directed that the petitioner be remanded to the custody of the sheriff 'to be by him detained in the county jail of said county until said sentence, fine and costs have been paid or satisfied in accordance with law.' The petitioner was thereupon committed, and he thereafter remained in the custody and under the control of the sheriff for the full term of his sentence. It appears, however, that, during a portion of his term of sentence, petitioner was assigned as a trusty performing the usual duties of such persons in and about the jail and upon the courthouse lawn. For a period of twenty-seven days he did manual labor upon a privately owned farm some distance from the jail, for which he received a compensation or one or two dollars per day. This outside work, however, was at the direction of the sheriff, who took him to, and brought him from, the place of work in an automobile owned by the county. Petitioner spent his nights in the jail during the entire term. After the full expiration of his sentence, and in an action for divorce brought by the petitioner against his wife, heard October 5, 1932, Before the sentencing judge, the latter learned that the petitioner had spent twenty-seven days of his sentence upon a farm, not his own, receiving the compensation above mentioned. Accordingly, on October 7, 1932, the judge, without any notice to, or process upon, the petitioner, and without any hearing at which petitioner was present, ordered him to be taken into custody and detained in the county jail for an additional period of twenty-seven days. Petitioner was accordingly arrested by the sheriff and this proceeding is the result.

The prosecuting attorney, appearing for the respondent, asserts and contends that this court should not assume to try or dispose of cases under its constitutional power to exercise original jurisdiction in habeas corpus proceedings, except in cases involving the interests of the state at large, or of public interest, or when it is necessary because there is no other adequate remedy, citing In re Emch, 124 Wash. 401, 214 P. 1043, In re Miller, 129 Wash. 538, 225 P. 429, and State ex rel. Goodwin v. Savidge, 133 Wash. 532, 234 P. 1.

The rule contended for is well settled in this state, and we adhere to it. But this case falls within the exception provided for in the rule itself. In view of what actually transpired, petitioner has no adequate remedy except by this proceeding. The court had, at an ex parte hearing recommitted the petitioner to jail for a period of twenty-seven days. He was immediately taken into custody and is now in jail. However conscientious the court's action...