In re Application of John F. Hanson for Writ of Habeas Corpus Against James T. Griffing
| Decision Date | 11 January 1930 |
| Docket Number | 29,335 |
| Parties | In re Application of JOHN F. HANSON for Writ of Habeas Corpus Against JAMES T. GRIFFING, as Sheriff, etc |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1930.
Original proceeding in habeas corpus.
Proceeding dismissed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. HABEAS CORPUS--Moot Issue--Dismissal. Where by order of the district court a person is committed to jail for direct contempt, and where the term of his incarceration expires and he is at liberty before his application for release on habeas corpus can be heard by the supreme court on its merits, the proceeding in habeas corpus is moot and properly subject to a motion to dismiss.
2. SAME--Generally. Miscellaneous motions and pleas filed by the petitioner considered and overruled.
John F. Hanson, pro se.
William A. Smith, attorney-general, Walter F. Griffin and R. O. Mason, assistant attorneys-general, for the respondent.
Jochems, J., not participating.
This is a proceeding in habeas corpus.
On October 28, 1929, John F. Hanson filed a petition in this court alleging that he was unlawfully held in jail in McPherson county, and praying for a writ of habeas corpus directed to the sheriff to show cause.
On October 30, 1929, the writ was allowed, and on November 7, 1929, the sheriff made a return thereto showing that he held Hanson in jail by virtue of an order of the district court which reads as follows:
STATE OF KANSAS, MCPHERSON COUNTY, SS:
The State of Kansas, to the Sheriff of McPherson County, Greetings:
. . . .
Whereas, John F. Hanson did in open court this 25th day of October, 1929, abuse, insult and annoy the court in a manner unbecoming to an attorney by stating to the court that he dared him to fine said John F. Hanson for contempt. That he sneeringly and contemptuously made sneering answers to the court's rulings in the case that was up for consideration before the court. That his conduct through the proceedings showed no respect for the court.
It is therefore by the court found that the said John F. Hanson is guilty of contempt of court and you are ordered to take the said John F. Hanson and confine him in the county jail of McPherson county, Kansas, for a period of ten days or until released by order of the district court.
Witness my hand and the seal of said court, affixed at my office in McPherson, this the 25th day of October, 1929.
Clerk District Court, McPherson County.
On the same day, November 7, 1929, Hanson applied to this court for a citation against the sheriff for contempt of this court and for $ 1,000 damages on the alleged ground that on October 25, 1929, the day Hanson was sent to jail by the district court of McPherson county, the sheriff failed to supply him with pen, ink and paper to apply to this court for a writ of habeas corpus; that notice of the granting of the writ reached McPherson on the evening of October 30 and the sheriff did not deliver it until the next morning, and that the sheriff was dilatory in mailing a letter from Hanson to this court concerning the fixing of a bond for his release.
On November 7, 1929, this court considered the matters alleged in this application and concluded that they were frivolous and vexatious. The application for a citation was denied and Hanson's demand for an award of damages against the sheriff was likewise denied. On November 8 Hanson filed a motion for "an opinion on motion for citation for contempt." That motion was denied November 15, 1929.
On November 7, 1929, the attorney-general, on behalf of the sheriff, filed a motion to dismiss this proceeding on the ground that Hanson had been set free on November 3, 1929, by reason of the expiration of his sentence, whereby this cause had become moot.
On November 8 Hanson filed a demurrer to the sheriff's return to the writ, and moved to strike out parts of it as libelous and "does not purport to be any proper record of the court below and could not be made so because it is not true," and because "it shows on its face that it is wholly void."
On November 9 Hanson filed a motion to "correct" certain dates of filing indorsed on some of the numerous papers filed with the clerk of this court in this cause. An explanatory postscript to this motion reads:
"NOTE.--This is material to show how much delay was caused and to place the responsibility therefore."
On November 27 Hanson filed a petition for a rehearing on motion to cite the sheriff for contempt of court.
The files of this cause are cluttered with other evidences of the literary industry of the petitioner, but the foregoing will suffice to show its nature.
Hanson appeared and resisted that motion pro se, and also made an argument in support of his demurrer to the sheriff's return. The pertinency of the attorney-general's motion was obvious, but the petitioner's argument was too recondite or obscure to be of practical assistance to the court. The petitioner was at large; he was not in jail; he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Roat
..., 295 Kan. 837, 840-41, 286 P.3d 866 (2012). A case that is moot is properly subject to a motion to dismiss. Hanson v. Griffing , 129 Kan. 597, 283 P. 659 (1930).A. Mootness Is a Discretionary Policy Based on Judicial EconomyKansas has historically considered the mootness doctrine as ground......
-
State v. Wright
... ... testify should not be considered by jury against ... him and that jury should disregard ... by the State against John Wright. From an adverse judgment, ... defendant ... Wood, ... Co. Atty., and James B. Nash, Deputy Co. Atty., both of ... Wichita, ... Kan. 628, 148 P. 675. In Re Hanson, 129 Kan. 597, ... 283 P. 659, 661, it was said: ... ...