Ex Parte Williams.

• Citation: 149 N.C. 436,63 S.E. 108
• Parties: Ex parte WILLIAMS.
• Decision Date: 16 December 1908
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina

63 S.E. 108

(149 N.C. 436)

Ex parte WILLIAMS.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 16, 1908.

1. Habeas Corpus (§ 113^*) — Discharge of Prisoner—Appeal by State.

The state cannot appeal from an order in habeas corpus proceedings discharging from imprisonment one convicted of crime.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Habeas Corpus, Cent. Dig. § 106; J)ec. Dig. § 113.*]

2. Pardon (§ 10*)—Revocation.

Though under Const, art. 3, § 6, the Governor has power to grant conditional pardons, where a pardon has been delivered to a prisoner, and the prisoner has complied with a condition precedent to the granting of the pardon, the pardon cannot be withdrawn by the Governor, though it contains a condition subsequent to the effect that the prisoner shall remain of good behavior, where the withdrawal is not based on a failure to comply with such condition.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pardon, Cent. Dig. § 23; Dec. Dig. § 10.*]

3. Pardon (§ 8*)—Requisites—Delivery and Acceptance.

; A pardon is not complete and effective until it has been delivered and accepted.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pardon, Cent. Dig. § 15; Dec. Dig. § &*]

4. Pardon (§ 8*)—Delivery—Sufficiency.

Delivery of a pardon by the Governor to the attorney for the prisoner amounts to a constructive delivery to the prisoner, and such delivery is not rendered ineffectual by the act of the sheriff to whom the pardon is sent for execution in returning the pardon to the Governor on the Governor's request.

TEd. Note.—For other cases, see Pardon, Cent. Dig. § 15; Dec. Dig. § 8.*]

Appeal from Superior Court, Burke County; Justice, Judge.

Application of Dick Williams for a writ of habeas corpus to secure his release from imprisonment on a criminal charge. From a judgment discharging the applicant, the state appeals. Affirmed.

The petitioner was duly convicted in the superior court of Burke county of the offense of retailing spirituous liquors contrary to law, and was sentenced to six months in jail, and to be worked on the roads of Gaston county. On May 2, 1908, the Governor.of the state issued a pardon containing the condition that the prisoner shall "pay all costs In the case and remain of good behavior, sober, and industrious." The pardon was delivered by the Governor to R. L. Huffman, attorney for the petitioner, Williams, with a request that, when the costs in the case were paid to the clerk of the superior court of Burke county, said pardon should then be delivered to the sheriff of Burkecounty, to be forwarded to the sheriff of Gaston county where the prisoner was at work. The costs were paid and the pardon forwarded to the sheriff of Gaston county for the prisoner on May 4, 1908. The pardon was received by said sheriff, but before he delivered it to the prisoner the Governor wired said sheriff not to execute the pardon, that it was withdrawn. The prisoner applied to his honor, Judge Justice, for a writ of habeas corpus, and upon the hearing was discharged. The state appealed.

Assistant Attorney General Clement, for the State.

Riddle & Huffman, John M. Mull, and John T. Perkins, for appellee.

BROWN, J. The prisoner having been discharged, no practical purpose is to be subserved in prosecuting this appeal, even if the state had such right, which it is plainly intimated in State v. Miller, 97 N. C. 452, 3 S. E. 234, is not given the state. Proceedings in habeas corpus, the object of which is to release a person from illegal restraint, must necessarily be summary to be useful, and, if action could be arrested by an appeal upon the part of the state, the great writ of liberty would be deprived of its most beneficial results. This must be the legislative view, as no provision is made for such an appeal by the state, while an appeal is allowable to either the petitioner or the respondent where the custody of children Is involved. As the matter presented is of public interest, we will however consider the appeal a its merits. The power of the Governor to grant conditional pardons under section 6, article 3, Const., is undoubted. The facts agreed show that executive clemency was extended to the petitioner upon a condition precedent and also a condition subsequent; the first being that he should pay the costs, and the latter being that he shall "remain of good behavior, sober, and industrious." The costs were paid, but whether the petitioner will remain of good behavior, sober, and industrious the future can only determine.

The...