In re Brooks
| Decision Date | 10 November 1903 |
| Citation | 15 Haw. 276 |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF F. M. BROOKS IN BEHALF OF DOMINGOS FERREIRA FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Submitted June 20, 1903.
APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT JUDGE, FIRST CIRCUIT.
Syllabus by the Court
A decision discharging a prisoner on habeas corpus conclusively determines that he was not liable to be held on the state of facts then existing.
A prisoner was erroneously discharged on habeas corpus because although the judgment and sentence were valid and a mittimus had been issued to the High Sheriff, who was by law responsible for the safe keeping of all prisoners, the prison-keeper was not furnished with a certified copy of the judgment and sentence and no mittimus was directed to him. No appeal was taken. Subsequently a certified copy of the judgment and sentence was furnished the prison-keeper and the prisoner was rearrested. Held that, on a second application for a release on habeas corpus, there was no material change in the facts, the first decision was binding and it was error to remand the prisoner to custody.
G. A Davis and F. M. Brooks for the petitioner.
Attorney General L. Andrews contra.
The petitioner, who was serving a term of imprisonment for eighteen months in Oahu Prison under a sentence of a Circuit Court, was discharged by a Circuit Judge on habeas corpus apparently on the ground that the mittimus was not directed to the keeper of the prison as well as to the High Sheriff and that such keeper did not have in his possession a certified copy of the judgment and sentence or other written authority to hold the prisoner. The petitioner was rearrested and, on suing out a second writ of habeas corpus, was remanded to custody on the ground that since his first discharge the High Sheriff had furnished the keeper a certified copy of the judgment and sentence. The Circuit Judge relied on the words that we italicise in the following provision of the Civil Laws:
The petitioner contends that, in view of the first decision which has not been appealed from, the doctrine of res judicata applies. If the " commitment" referred to in the statute means commitment after sentence as well as preliminary commitment for trial, and if the Judge was correct in his view that the prisoner could not be held unless the keeper of the prison had a certified copy of the judgment and sentence or a mittimus directed to him, it may be that the statute would applv and the second decision be correct. But, in our opinion, the first decision was not correct. While it might be better practice to leave some written authority with the prison-keeper personally, the mittimus to the High Sheriff alone was sufficient. It was in accordance with the long prevailing practice here and the High Sheriff himself was the one " responsible for the safe keeping of all prisoners." Civ. L., Sec. 1049. It was alleged in the petition for the writ of habeas corpus that the petitioner was in the custody of the High Sheriff and such writs have usually been directed to him and returns by him setting forth mittimuses to him have been deemed sufficient in habeas corpus cases. Again, it was held in Ex parte Oriemon, 13 Haw. 102, that a prisoner is held not by the mittimus but by the judgment and sentence, and is not entitled to a discharge for a defect in the mittimus if the judgment and sentence are good. And in the first case before the Circuit Judge the High Sheriff amended his return by setting forth the judgment and sentence as well as the mittimus. That such amendment could properly be made is held in Kelley v. Thomas, 15 Gray 192, under a statute from which ours is copied. The Circuit Judge purported...
To continue reading
Request your trial