Ex Parte McLaughlin

• Decision Date: 24 May 1937
• Docket Number: No. 19060.,19060.
• Citation: 105 S.W.2d 1020
• Parties: Ex parte McLAUGHLIN.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

105 S.W.2d 1020

Ex parte McLAUGHLIN.

No. 19060.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 24, 1937.

"Not to be published in State Reports."

Original application by Ruth McLaughlin for a writ of habeas corpus against State Hospital No. 2, located in St. Joseph, Missouri.

Judgment for petitioner.

Roy N. DeVault, W. Rea Heath, and Samuel W. Liske, all of Kansas City, for petitioner.

John B. Pew and Hilary Bush, both of Kansas City, for respondent.

CAMPBELL, Commissioner.

The petitioner, Ruth McLaughlin, was received into the State Hospital No. 2, located in St. Joseph, Mo., on June 11, 1936, and has since been detained therein. She seeks out writ upon the theory that the said hospital is detaining her without warrant of law. The hospital, through its constituted authorities, justifies detaining petitioner upon the sole ground that she was committed to the hospital in virtue of the judgment of the county court of Jackson county, Mo., rendered on June 8, 1936. Hence, this proceeding presents the single question: Was the judgment of June 8 a valid one. If valid, petitioner is rightfully detained; if void, she is entitled to her liberty.

On June 2, 1936, the county clerk of Jackson county, Mo., issued a notice as follows:

"The State of Missouri

"To the Sheriff of Jackson County, Greeting:

"You are hereby commanded to notify Ruth McLaughlin that F. B. McFadin, a citizen of Jackson County, Missouri, has filed with the Clerk of the County Court of Jackson County, Missouri, at Kansas City, a statement in writing alleging that she, the said Ruth McLaughlin, is insane, that such insanity is less than one years' duration, that she has not estate sufficient to support herself at a state hospital, that she is a resident of said County and State aforesaid, and that an inquiry into said matter will be had in and by said County Court at the Courthouse in Kansas City on Monday, the 8th day of June, 1936, at 10 o'clock, A. M. of that day; at which time and place Ruth McLaughlin is entitled to be present, and to be assisted by counsel, and have you then and there this writ.

"Witness, William Hicks, Clerk of the County Court and the seal thereof hereto affixed at office in Kansas City, this 2nd day of June, A. D. 1936.

                                    "William Hicks
                                         "County Clerk
                                    "By J. P. Lapetina
                                         "Deputy Clerk."
                

The notice was served on petitioner in Jackson county, Mo., by the sheriff of said county on June 2, 1936.

The judgment of June 8 reads as follows:

"In the matter of Ruth McLaughlin, 2615 Lockridge, Kansas City, Mo.

"Now comes T. B. McFadden of Kansas City, Mo., and files information that said patient is insane and that her insanity is of one year's duration and that she has not estate enough to support herself at a State Hospital and that she is a citizen of Jackson County, Missouri.

"And now the above cause coming on to be heard and the facts above stated being proven to the satisfaction of the Court by two good witnesses, one of whom is Dr. J. H. Jennette, who is a reputable practicing physician, and by the County Investigator, who recommends that the said patient be committed to a State Hospital for treatment as a county charge.

"It is, therefore, ordered by the Court that the said Ruth McLaughlin be this day found to be of unsound mind and that she be ordered committed to State Hospital # 2 located at St. Joseph, Missouri, to undergo treatment thereat as a Jackson County patient, and that the Clerk of this Court be directed to transmit to the Superintendent of said State Hospital a certified copy of this order."

The information, which the judgment says was filed on June 8, is in the form required by section 8643, R.S.1929 (Mo.St.Ann. § 8643, p. 7744), and bears no filing mark, unless the stamp "approved June 8, 1936," may be considered as a filing mark.

The oral testimony is to the effect that said information was in fact lodged in the office of the county clerk on June 2.

The record discloses that the county court was in session on June 2 and that no minute was made showing the filing of the information.

The proceeding against petitioner was based upon the provisions of article 2, chapter 46, R.S.1929 (section 8629 et seq., as amended [Mo.St.Ann. § 8629 et seq., p. 7738 et seq.]). That article makes no provision for the service of notice of hearing upon the alleged insane person. However, the general law provides for the issuance of writs (the notice was a writ) "according to the principles and usages of law." Sections 1844 and 1845, R.S.1929 (Mo.St.Ann. §§ 1844, 1845, p. 2565). Of course, it will not be claimed that the court could lawfully adjudge the petitioner to be insane unless she had been duly notified of the hearing; nor should it be claimed that the clerk had power to issue a notice unless the information or statement required by said section 8643 had been filed. The notice was the act of the clerk, and its recitals to the effect that information was filed on June 2 is contradicted by the recitals in the judgment,...