In re Jennison

• Decision Date: 30 November 1901
• Citation: 74 Vt. 40,51 A. 1061
• Parties: In re JENNISON.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

51 A. 1061

74 Vt. 40

In re JENNISON.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Washington.

Nov. 30, 1901.

Exceptions from Washington county court; Watson, Judge.

Application for writ of habeas corpus by William Jennison, alleging an unlawful imprisonment by Frank H. Tracey. From a pro forma judgment on an agreed statement of facts, dismissing the petition and remanding the relator, the relator brings exceptions. Relator discharged.

The relator was on January 24, 1901, arrested at Marshfield, in Washington county, on a capias issued by a justice of the peace, returnable at Marshfield on February 23, 1901. The officer making the arrest committed the relator to the county jail at Montpelier, of which the respondent was the keeper. Neither the officer who made the arrest, nor the respondent, took the relator to the place of trial upon the day of trial and it was agreed that the only question for determination is whether the relator should have been so produced in court, and that, if he should have been so produced, the relator should be discharged; otherwise remanded.

Argued before TAFT, C. J., and ROWELL, TYLER, MUNSON, START, WATSON, and STAFFORD, JJ.

J. P. Lamson, for relator.

Edward H. Deavitt, for respondent.

TAFT, C. J. The relator was arrested by one Templeton, a deputy sheriff, upon a writ issued as a capias by a justice of the peace, and committed to jail in Washington county; having neglected to procure bail. The sheriff who served the writ did not produce the relator upon the return day of the writ nor at the time and place to which the case was continued; but the relator remained in jail from the time of his commitment and was confined therein under such commitment at the time the petition was brought The precept upon which the relator was arrested and confined in jail commanded the officer, for want of goods, etc., to take the body of the defendant if found, and him safely keep, so that he have him to appear before the anthority signing the writ etc. It was the duty of the officer serving the precept to follow the command therein made to take the defendant's body, etc., and to have him before the authority signing the writ at the time and place therein named. Taking him, confining him in jail, and not producing him at the time and place stated in the writ, was not a compliance with the order contained in it The relator should have been produced at the justice trial, and, under the agreed statement of facts, he must be discharged; the parties...