In re Lucas Candido for a Writ Corpus, 1935.

• Decision Date: 12 November 1930
• Docket Number: No. 1935.,1935.
• Citation: 31 Haw. 630
• Parties: IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF LUCAS CANDIDO FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

31 Haw. 630

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF LUCAS CANDIDO FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.

No. 1935.

Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawai‘i.

Argued October 24, 1930.

Decided November 12, 1930.

Syllabus by the Court

Circuit courts, as distinguished from circuit judges at chambers, have, under the statutes of this Territory, no jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus.

When a petition for a writ of habeas corpus describes the court in which it is filed as “The Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit Territory of Hawaii,” and other portions of the petition indicate that the circuit court of such circuit and not the circuit judge at chambers is referred to and the orders and judgment thereafter rendered also indicate that jurisdiction was exercised by such circuit court and not by the circuit judge at chambers, it affirmatively appears that the writ was issued by a tribunal having no jurisdiction to issue it.

E. J. Botts (also on the brief) for petitioner.

E. R. McGhee, Third Deputy Attorney General ( H. R. Hewitt, Attorney General, with him on the briefs), for respondents.

PERRY, C. J., BANKS AND PARSONS, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY BANKS, J.

This is an appeal from a decision and judgment rendered in a habeas corpus proceeding. The decision and judgment were in favor of the petitioner and the case is therefore here on the respondent's appeal. One of the contentions of the appellants (and for reasons that will be noted later the only one we will at this time consider) is that it appears from the record that the proceeding was instituted and prosecuted in the circuit court of the first judicial circuit, as distinguished from the circuit judge at chambers, and was therefore heard and determined by a tribunal that under our statutes was without jurisdiction of the subject matter and therefore without jurisdiction to render the decision and judgment appealed from.

Section 2247, R. L. 1925, provides that “the several circuit courts shall have jurisdiction, subject to appeal and exceptions to the supreme court according to law, as follows:” Then follows a specific enumeration of the kind of cases and proceedings concerning which the circuit courts were given jurisdiction. Jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus is not included. Section 2248, R. L. 1925, provides that “the judges of the several circuit courts shall have power at chambers within their respective jurisdictions, but subject to appeal to the circuit and supreme courts, according to law, as follows:” Then follows a specific enumeration of the matters and proceedings concerning which the circuit judges at chambers were given jurisdiction. The seventh enumeration is as follows: “To issue writs of habeas corpus according to law.” It is apparent from these two sections that the legislature intended to divide jurisdiction and to confer upon circuit judges at chambers and not upon circuit courts jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus. If further proof of the legislative intent were needed it is found in section 2727, R. L. 1925, which is as follows: “The supreme court, the justices thereof and the circuit judges may in their discretion issue writs of habeas corpus in cases in which such writs are not demandable of right as well as in cases in which they are demandable of right.”

If therefore it affirmatively appears from the record in the instant case that the proceeding was brought in the circuit court and not before the circuit judge at chambers and that the writ was issued by the circuit court and not by the judge at chambers, then it is clear that the court issuing it was without jurisdiction to do so. The case of High Sheriff v. Goto, 16 Haw. 263, is decisive of this point. In that case the writ was issued by the circuit court and not by the circuit judge at chambers and it was held that the court, under statutes similar to those above referred to, exceeded its jurisdiction and the judgment of the court below was reversed.

It only remains to ascertain from the record by what authority the writ before us was issued.

The petition is entitled “In the Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit Territory of Hawaii,” and is addressed “To the Honorable, The Presiding Judge in the Above-entitled Matter.” Following this are certain allegations regarding the imprisonment of the petitioner and the official character of the respondents. The fourth clause of the petition is as follows: “That on or about the 11th day of September, 1929, the said Marshall B. Henshaw, Bernice Dwight Spitz and J. B. Guard, composing the board of prison inspectors aforesaid, did order and direct the said John C. Lane, high sheriff and warden of Oahu Prison as aforesaid, to inflict or cause to be inflicted upon the said Lucas Candido, certain cruel and unusual punishment, to wit, a flogging with a cat-o'-nine-tails, and the said John C. Lane will, if not restrained and prevented by this honorable court, inflict such punishment on said Lucas Candido.” Then follow certain other allegations which it is not necessary to recite. The prayer of the petition is: “Wherefore, to be relieved of said unlawful detention and imprisonment for the purposes aforesaid, to wit: the flogging of your petitioner as aforesaid, the said Lucas Candido, by Lorenzo Sequito prays that a writ of habeas corpus be issued herein directed to the said John C. Lane, high sheriff as aforesaid and warden of Oahu Prison; Marshall B. Henshaw, Bernice Dwight Spitz and J. B. Guard, composing the board of prison inspectors aforesaid, and that your petitioner may be forthwith brought before this honorable court to do, submit to and receive what the law may direct.” An order to show cause, entitled “In the Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit Territory of Hawaii,” and directed to the respondents was issued. This order to show cause is as follows: “The Territory of Hawaii

“To

“John C. Lane, High Sheriff of the Territory of Hawaii and Marshall B. Henshaw, Bernice Dwight Spitz and J. B. Guard, members of the Board of Prison Inspectors in and for the First Judicial Circuit, Territory of Hawaii, Greeting

“On reading and filing the petition of Lucas Candido, by Lorenzo Sequito, his next friend, for a writ of habeas corpus herein, and good cause appearing therefor,

“It is hereby ordered that John C. Lane, high sheriff of the Territory of Hawaii and warden of Oahu Prison, Marshall B. Henshaw, Bernice Dwight Spitz and J. B. Guard, be and appear before this honorable court on the 26th day of September, 1929, at the hour of 2:00 o'clock P. M. on said day, and then and there show cause, if any they have, why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued as prayed for; and in the meantime you, the said John C. Lane and Marshall B. Henshaw, Bernice Dwight Spitz and J. B. Guard will desist from inflicting any corporal punishment on the said Lucas Candido, until further order of the court;

“It is further ordered that a copy of this order and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus be forthwith served on the said John C. Lane, Marshall B. Henshaw, Bernice Dwight Spitz and J. B. Guard, if they can be found in...