Ex parte Keeler
|30 January 1896
|23 S.E. 865,45 S.C. 537
|Ex parte KEELER.
|South Carolina Supreme Court
Syllabus by the Court.
The prisoner, Martin Keeler, was placed in the penitentiary of South Carolina for violating an order restraining him from selling intoxicating liquors without a license. He now applies to the supreme court for a discharge under a writ of habeas corpus. Petition dismissed.
James E. Davis, for petitioner.
Will A. Barber, Atty. Gen., for the State.
This is a proceeding in habeas corpus, in which Martin Keeler petitions this court to be discharged from imprisonment in the state penitentiary. He was arrested under a warrant charging him with violation of what is called the "Dispensary Act." He waived preliminary examination, and gave bond for his appearance at court. A search warrant was issued against the said Martin Keeler, and certain intoxicating liquors were found, whereupon Mr. Solicitor Bellinger made application in writing for a restraining order against said Martin Keeler, which was granted by his honor, Judge Watts. Thereafter a rule was issued against said defendant, to show cause why he should not be attached for contempt of court in violating said restraining order, but this rule was discharged by his honor, Judge Watts. Subsequently, however, his honor, Judge Buchanan, after hearing affidavits and argument of counsel for the state and the defendant, adjudged the said defendant guilty of contempt of court, in violating the restraining order aforesaid, and sentenced the defendant to pay a fine of $200 and to imprisonment in the state penitentiary for 90 days. The proceedings under which the defendant was fined and imprisoned arose under section 22 of the dispensary act, which section will be set out in the report of the case.
The defendant, in his petition, presents to this court several grounds for his discharge from imprisonment, some of which the court has not the power to consider in habeas corpus proceedings. The defendant has been adjudged guilty of contempt of court and imprisoned therefor. This court will therefore, not release the defendant from imprisonment unless the proceedings in which he was adjudged guilty of contempt of court are null and void, in whole or in part. The proceeding by habeas corpus is not a substitute for the right of appeal, and there are questions which, although they could properly be reviewed on appeal, cannot be considered in habeas corpus proceedings. This limitation upon the power of the court in habeas corpus proceedings is clearly expressed by Mr. Justice Harlan in Andrews v. Swartz, 15 S.Ct. 389, 391, where he speaks of the well-established rule that a prisoner under conviction and sentence of another court will not be discharged on habeas corpus, unless the court that passed the sentence was so far without jurisdiction that its proceedings must be regarded as void,--citing Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371; In re Wood, 140 U.S. 287, 11 S.Ct. 738; In re Shilbuya Jugirs, 140 U.S. 297, 11 S.Ct. 770; Pepke v. Cronan, 155 U.S. 100, 15 S.Ct. 34. We will now consider the question whether the proceedings under which the petitioner was imprisoned are null and void, either in whole or in part. The authorities sustain the following propositions of law: First. That the legislature has the power to declare places where liquor is sold contrary to law to be common nuisances, and to provide for their abatement. Mugler v. Kansas, 8 Sup. Ct. 273; Kidd v. Pearson, 9 S.Ct. 6; Lawton v. Steele, 14 S.Ct. 499. Second. That the legislature has the right to provide...
To continue readingRequest your trial