Ex Parte Helmert
Citation | 147 S.W. 1143 |
Parties | Ex parte HELMERT. |
Decision Date | 20 May 1912 |
Court | Supreme Court of Arkansas |
Certiorari to Crawford Chancery Court; J. V. Bourland, Chancellor.
Original petition by Willie Helmert for a writ of habeas corpus to be discharged from custody under an order made by J. V. Bourland as chancellor of the Franklin Chancery Court. Writ issued, and commitment quashed.
Sam R. Chew, of Van Buren, for appellant.
On the 13th day of May, 1912, Willie Helmert filed a petition in this court alleging a state of facts substantially as follows: That on the 28th day of March, 1912, Mamie Helmert instituted a suit for divorce in the Franklin chancery court for the Ozark district against her husband Willie Helmert, and on the same day the chancellor in vacation made the following order: Pursuant to the order the clerk of the court issued the following order of attachment: The order was served upon Willie Helmert by the sheriff of Franklin county, and, upon the said Helmert failing to give either of the bonds prescribed by the chancellor, the sheriff arrested the said Helmert and confined him in the county jail of Franklin county.
In his petition he set out the facts stated above and asked for a writ of habeas corpus. The sheriff appeared and stated that he held the petitioner on an order issued by the chancellor in vacation as above stated. Upon a hearing before the chancellor he refused to issue a writ of habeas corpus and dismissed the petition. The effect of the complaint filed herein is that the proceedings before the chancellor be reviewed by this court and that a writ of habeas corpus be issued as prayed for in his first petition, and that he be discharged from the custody of the sheriff. All of the parties have entered their appearance in this court and the issuance of the writ of certiorari has been waived, and as the proceedings had before the chancellor have been certified to this court, from which it appears that the allegations of the relator in both petitions so far as they are stated in this petition are true.
Matters pertaining to divorce and alimony were originally of ecclesiastical cognizance, but in this country they have always been regulated by statute and the courts generally have looked to the statutes...
To continue reading
Request your trial