Hunnicutt v. Frauhiger

• Decision Date: 28 October 1927
• Docket Number: No. 25047.,25047.
• Parties: HUNNICUTT v. FRAUHIGER.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

199 Ind. 501

158 N.E. 572

HUNNICUTT

v.FRAUHIGER.

No. 25047.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Oct. 28, 1927.

Appeal from Wells Circuit Court; A. Walter Hamilton, Judge.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus by William Hunnicutt against Noah Frauhiger and Noah Frauhiger as Sheriff of Wells County, Indiana. From judgment denying the writ, petitioner appeals. Affirmed.Simmons, Dailey & Simmons, of Bluffton, for appellant.

Elmore D. Sturgis, of Bluffton, for appellee.

WILLOUGHBY, J.

This was a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which it is alleged that the appellant is unlawfully restrained of his liberty, and is imprisoned by Noah Frauhiger, duly elected and qualified and acting sheriff of Wells county, at the Wells county jail, in the city of Bluffton, Ind. That the pretended cause of this restraint and imprisonment is that a certain pretended commitment was issued against the body of this petitioner commanding his arrest and imprisonment by one John H. Edris, as special judge of the city court of Bluffton, Ind., upon failure of petitioner to pay a certain fine and costs assessed in the case of the State of Indiana v. William Hunnicutt, charging a violation of the liquor laws of the state of Indiana, which cause and pretense are wholly untrue; and that such restraint was illegal because there was no valid judgment against the petitioner upon which an execution against his body could be legally charged; that said judgment was void for the reason that said city court was wholly without jurisdiction; that said John H. Edris, special judge, had no authority to issue such commitment against the body of this petitioner; that the pretended judgment rendered in the case of the State v. William Hunnicutt, aforesaid, was a fine of $100 and costs, and imprisonment in the Indiana State Prison for a period of not less than one year nor more than two years.

The return to the writ is as follows: Comes now Noah Frauhiger, the defendant and the person to whom the said writ of habeas corpus was directed, and says: That he is now, and was at the time said writ was issued, the sheriff of Wells county, state of Indiana, and ex officio the keeper of the jail of said Wells county, and for his answer and return thereof, upon his oath says that the said William Hunnicutt was, on the 27th day of September, 1924, arrested by virtue of a warrant issued from the court of the Mayor of the city of Bluffton, Ind., charging him with a violation of the liquor laws of the state of Indiana; that said affidavit was based upon chapter 23 of the Acts of 1923; that the defendant, William Hunnicutt, entered a plea of guilty of transporting intoxicating liquor as charged in the first count of the affidavit; that at all stages of said hearing in said court before the said John H. Edris, as special judge, the said William Hunnicutt was represented by an attorney; that said William Hunnicutt was adjudged guilty upon his said plea, and he was fined in the sum of $100, and also sentenced to the Indiana State Prison for a period of not less than one year nor more than two years; that the part of the said judgment assessing a sentence to the Indiana State Prison was suspended by the court; that no appeal from said judgment was taken by the petitioner, and that said judgment has never been appealed, and has never been reversed, and is in full force and effect to this date; that the said William Hunnicutt has failed to pay said fine and costs so assessed, and that the same remain due and wholly unpaid to this day; that on the 6th day of June, 1925, the said John H. Edris, special judge aforesaid, issued a commitment to Henry Gehrett, the marshal of the city of Bluffton, Ind., commanding the said Henry Gehrett, as said city marshal, to apprehend the said William Hunnicutt, and to deliver said Hunnicutt to the custody of this defendant as the jailer of Wells county, Ind., then and there to be confined in the jail of said county for 130 days for the failure of said Hunnicutt to pay the said fine and costs so assessed against him by said court; that said Hunnicutt was taken into the custody of said Henry Gehrett, the city marshal, by virtue of said writ of commitment, and that said Hunnicutt was then and there delivered into the custody of this defendant as the jailer of said Wells county, Ind.; that said William Hunnicutt is now in the custody of this defendant by virtue of said writ, and in no other way; and that a copy of said writ of commitment is filed herewith and made a part hereof; and the defendant prays the court that said petition for said writ of habeas corpus be quashed, and that said William Hunnicutt be continued in the custody of this defendant for the space of time set forth in said writ of commitment, and that this defendant be awarded his costs herein expended, and for all other proper relief in these premises.

The plaintiff filed exceptions to this return as follows: The undersigned, the plaintiff in the above-entitled cause, herewith files his exceptions to the return of the writ of habeas corpus by the defendant, Noah Frauhiger, and hereby excepts to said return, and says that said return is not a defense to the plaintiff's complaint herein, in this: That it shows that the judgment rendered in the case of the State of Indiana v. William Hunnicutt was rendered in the city court of Bluffton, Ind.; that said court is one of limited jurisdiction, and has no jurisdiction to pass sentence in a criminal case and to render judgment therein to exceed six months' imprisonment, nor has it any jurisdiction whatever in cases where the penalty exceeds imprisonment for six months; that the fact that the said William Hunnicutt was represented by an attorney, and that such attorney was present when said judgment was pronounced by the court, and the said defendant, William Hunnicutt, at that time made and filed no objections against said judgment, and that no objection was taken on behalf of the defendant, and that said judgment had never been appealed from, and never reversed, and is in full force and effect to this date, are not valid defenses to the plaintiff's complaint, for the reason that said court had no jurisdiction whatever to render such judgment, and that the failure to object either by the defendant or his attorney, or to appeal therefrom would not in any way confer such jurisdiction upon said court, and for the further reason that said judgment is void as shown by said return; that the power of the city court is fixed by the statutes of the state of Indiana, and that jurisdiction to exceed such powers could not be conferred by any act of the defendant or his attorney; that power and jurisdiction of said John H. Edris, as special judge in said cause, ended with the rendition of the judgment; and that the said special judge had no power to issue said writ of commitment. The plaintiff refused to plead further, and the cause was tried upon the pleadings.

The court overruled the plaintiff's exceptions to the return of said writ, and rendered judgment as follows:

“The court, being sufficiently advised in the premises, renders judgment against the petitioner and in favor of the defendant. It is therefore considered and adjudged by the court that the petitioner has not been, and is not now, unlawfully restrained of his liberty by the defendant. It is further considered and adjudged by the court that the said petitioner should be remanded to the custody of the defendant. It is further considered and adjudged by the court that the defendant should recover of and from the petitioner his costs made, laid out and expended in this cause.”

The appellant appeals from this judgment and relies upon the following alleged errors for reversal: (1) The court erred in overruling the exceptions of the plaintiff to the return of the defendant to the writ of habeas corpus; (2) that the return of the defendant to the writ of habeas corpus does not state a defense to plaintiff's cause of action, and the court erred in holding that said writ was sufficient.

These two separate assignments of error, numbered 1 and 2, raise the same question of law. The appellant contends that the return shows upon its face that the judgment returned in the case of the State of Indiana v. William Hunnicutt was returned in the city court of Bluffton, Ind., and that said court is one of limited jurisdiction, and has no jurisdiction to pass sentence in a criminal case and to enter judgment therein to exceed six months in prison, nor has it any jurisdiction whatever in a case where the penalty exceeds imprisonment of six months.

The appellant was charged in the city court of the city of Bluffton, with unlawfully transporting intoxicating liquor under section 1, c. 23, Acts 1923, p. 70, and pleaded guilty to said charge. The penalty provided for, in a violation of said statute, is as follows:

“Any person violating this section, upon conviction, shall be fined not less than $100 and not more than $500 to which shall be added imprisonment in the county jail of not less than thirty days nor more than six months. ***”

The city court by section 2, c. 161, Acts 1921, p. 409, had power to render judgment for a fine in any sum not exceeding $500 or adjudge imprisonment for any time not exceeding six months in the county jail, workhouse, or other lawfully designated place of confinement, or both, and therefore had jurisdiction to render judgment for the maximum penalty for a violation of the above statute. The judgment pronounced by the city court was a final judgment.

[1] Where the court has jurisdiction of the party and the subject-matter of the action, the judgment rendered thereon is not void. Church on Habeas Corpus, § 372; Lowery v. Howard, 103 Ind. 440, 3 N. E. 124; 29 C. J. p. 51, § 46, note 34; McLaughlin v. Etchison, 127 Ind. 474, 27 N. E. 152, 22 Am. St. Rep. 658.

[2][3] The statute on habeas corpus provides as follows:

“No court or judge shall inquire into the legality of any...