Ex parte Williams
| Decision Date | 14 August 1924 |
| Docket Number | 15620. |
| Citation | 228 P. 494,102 Okla. 170,1924 OK 663 |
| Parties | EX PARTE WILLIAMS. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where a prisoner, in custody under sentence of conviction, seeks to be discharged on habeas corpus, the inquiry is limited to the question whether the court in which he was convicted had jurisdiction of his person and of the crime charged, and if the trial court had jurisdiction to convict and sentence; the writ cannot issue to correct mere errors. Ex parte Stover, 14 Okl. Cr. 120, 167 P. 1000.
When a person is charged with indirect contempt, he has a right to trial by jury upon such charge, but the failure to award such jury trial constitutes an irregularity which does not defeat the jurisdiction, nor render the judgment void. Ex parte Plaistridge, 68 Okl. 256, 173 P. 646. In case of the denial of such right, the remedy is by mandamus. McKee v. De Graffenreid et al., 33 Okl. 137, 124 P. 303.
Original application by Jeff Williams for discharge on habeas corpus from imprisonment. Writ denied, and petitioner remanded to custody.
Simpson & Ditto, of Oklahoma City, for petitioner.
Gustave A. Erixon and H. F. Tripp, both of Oklahoma City, for respondent.
Statement of the Case.
The petitioner in this case, Jeff Williams, has invoked the original jurisdiction of this court by suing out a writ of habeas corpus. In his petition he alleges that he is unlawfully imprisoned, and restrained of his liberty in the county jail in Oklahoma county, by the sheriff of Oklahoma county; that on April 28, 1924, one Lillian Holcombe filed a suit against him, the said Jeff Williams, for annulment of a purported marriage, and on the same date obtained an order against him to pay $10 as cost deposit, $100 attorney fee and $50 for the use and benefit of plaintiff, and that thereafter, on May 17, 1924, the district court of Oklahoma county issued a citation requiring him to be and appear before it on May 27, 1924, at 9 o'clock a. m., which citation was not served personally on the defendant, but was left with defendant's father, and that thereafter, on or about July 26, 1924, this defendant was arrested under an attachment issued out of said court, and that on July 31, 1924, the said district court issued an order as follows:
Petitioner further alleges that, on the 1st day of August, 1924, he filed a motion to modify the above order, setting up that he was unable to comply with the same; that on August 1 the district court set said motion down for hearing on August 2 1924, and thereafter, on the 2d day of August, 1924, there were two judges present in the district court of Oklahoma county, neither of whom would take up such motion, and refused to admit the defendant to bail, although the defendant offered to make bail in good and sufficient amount with sufficient surety, and the defendant is still confined in jail. He alleges that his imprisonment is illegal because first, the court had no authority to commit him for an indefinite term; second, that it had no authority to commit him for failure to comply with an order which defendant was unable to perform; third, that the order is defective, in that it fails to state whether it finds the defendant guilty of contempt for not responding to the citation, or for not paying the amount of money ordered to be paid; fourth, that the order is void because it is an imprisonment for debt prohibited by our Constitution; fifth, that the order is void because the defendant was entitled to have his motion to vacate heard and acted on; sixth, that he has had no due process of law; seventh, that he is financially unable to comply with the order; eighth, that the contempt, if any, was an indirect contempt upon which charge he was entitled to trial by jury, which has been demanded and denied; ninth, that one of the judges on August 2 fixed petitioner's bail in the amount of $500, but that the other judge who tried the case refused to admit petitioner to bail; and, tenth, that redress cannot be had in the district court of Oklahoma county by reason of the fact that he does not hold any final or appealable order, and that his only remedy is by habeas corpus writ. He prays to be discharged from his imprisonment.
To this petition the respondents have interposed a general and special demurrer, the grounds therefor being, first, that petitioner has no legal capacity or right to prosecute this action, or to seek the relief prayed for in his petition; second, that this court has no jurisdiction either of the person or the subject-matter of this action; third, that there is a defect of parties named as respondents in this action; fourth, that several pretended causes of action are improperly joined; fifth, that said petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action as to entitle the petitioner to the relief prayed for therein.
As a part of the return of respondents, the original papers in cause No. 42518, pending in the district court of Oklahoma county, Okl., wherein Lillian Holcombe is plaintiff, and the respondent, Jeff D. Williams, is defendant, have been submitted to this court, together with a certified transcript of the record of proceedings in said court. The decision of this cause must be upon the pleadings, namely, the petition and the demurrer, and the papers and record can serve no purpose, save to advise this court of the proceedings under which the petitioner was committed to jail.
It appears from the petition that suit for divorce or annulment of marriage was begun by Lillian Holcombe against the petitioner here as defendant; that in the progress of this suit an order was made by the district court of Oklahoma county, requiring the defendant in that case to pay to the clerk of the court certain sums of money for costs, attorney's fees, and for the use and benefit of the plaintiff. It appears further that this order was not complied with by the defendant, Jeff D. Williams; that said defendant was finally arrested under an attachment issued out of said court, and that on July 31, 1924, a hearing was had upon which the trial court adjudged the defendant in contempt, and ordered him committed to jail until the order of the court was complied with, or until further order of court.
While the petitioner sets forth numerous causes upon which he bases his allegations, we deem it unnecessary to consider those allegations which have to do only with errors alleged to have occurred in the progress of the cause in the district court, for the reason that it is so well settled in our court that such errors or irregularities cannot be here inquired into, and we will consider only those grounds charging lack of jurisdiction, or excess of jurisdiction, in the trial court in the making of the order, and while the respondents have included in their demurrer several grounds, we take it from the argument that the only ground of demurrer urged here is that the petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, or to entitle the petitioner to the relief asked for.
Opinion.It appears to be well settled by the decisions of this court that, if the trial court had jurisdiction of the person and of the offense, this court will not discharge upon writ of habeas corpus, and errors of the trial court within its jurisdiction can be corrected, as a general rule, only by appeal or writ of error. In Ex parte Harlan, 1 Okl. 48, 27 P. 920, the syllabus is as follows:
In the case of William Taylor v. H. F. Newblock, 5 Okl. 647, 49 P. 1114, Chief Justice Dale says:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial