Ex parte Donahoe

• Decision Date: 25 April 1888
• Citation: 24 Neb. 66,38 N.W. 28
• Parties: EX PARTE DONAHOE.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

24 Neb. 66

38 N.W. 28

EX PARTE DONAHOE.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

April 25, 1888.

Syllabus by the Court.

A proceeding under the bastardy act, in conformity with the statute, where the putative father is imprisoned for non-compliance with the order of the court, will not be reviewed on application for a writ of habeas corpus.

The statute providing assessment and imprisonment of the father is constitutional, without remedy for the discharge of the father, other than security for the compliance with the order of the court.Application by James Donahoe for writ of habeas corpus.

Charles Offut and Silas Cobb, for relator.

COBB, J.

This is an original application for a writ of habeas corpus to the sheriff of Douglas county. The petitioner's application shows that on July 19, 1887, Hulda Nelson, an unmarried woman, charged him under section 1 of an act entitled “An act for the maintenance and support of illegitimate children,” (chapter 37, Comp. St. 1887,) with the paternity of her bastard child. On his confession to the charge he was held to bail in $500 to the next term of the district court, and, failing to comply, was committed. When the charge was called in the district court, November 11th following, the putative father renewed his confession. An order of affiliation was made which charged him with the maintenance of the child in $100 yearly for 15 years, ordered him to give security for the payment, and, in default, was committed to jail, “there to remain until he shall comply with the requirements of the court.” On the 10th December following, pursuant to notice to the complaining witness and the county attorney of Douglas county, the petitioner was brought before the district court, took the insolvent debtor's oath, submitted proof that he was a penniless day laborer with no estate in esse or posse, and was without income except from manual labor; that he had made diligent effort to give the security required to pay the money, without avail, and on this showing asked to be discharged from custody. But upon the complaining witness' objection, he was remanded to jail and there remains. The proceeding under the statute does not offer any remedy for imprisonment under it but that of security to comply with the order of the court, nor any alternative but that of payment of the amount to the complaining witness, the mother of the child. It is not an imprisonment in aid of execution for debt to be discharged under section 557 of the Code...