In re McWilliams
| Decision Date | 06 January 1914 |
| Citation | 164 S.W. 221,254 Mo. 512 |
| Parties | In re CHARLES E. McWILLIAMS |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Writ denied.
R. H Musser and Paul D. Kitt for petitioner.
E. L Marshall and L. D. Allen for respondent.
Habeas Corpus.
After the most painstaking examination of the authorities we are of the opinion that the application for the writ of habeas corpus, which has been filed here, when considered in the light of the law, shows upon its face that petitioner is not entitled to his discharge from custody in the manner and form of procedure here invoked and under the conditions here presented. [Sec. 2444, R. S. 1909; Ex parte Roberts, 166 Mo. 207, 65 S.W. 726.]
The probate court had jurisdiction and plenary power to adjudge petitioner to be a person of unsound mind. Petitioner will continue to be regarded in law as non compos for all general and usual purposes till the probate court or a jury shall have found him to be sane. The legal machinery to re-examine petitioner's status, is ample, simple, convenient and summary.
When section 513, Revised Statutes 1909, came into our law (Section 9, p. 433, R. S. 1825) imprisonment for debt still existed. It may have had reference to conditions arising from this fact. While Kansas, upon a very similar statute, has held contrary to the views herein (In re Kidd, 40 Kan. 644, 20 P. 526) and likewise contrary to the common law and to the holding in other States and jurisdictions, we are unable to take this view for the reasons we set out below.
The status of an insane person not charged with a crime is different from that of an insane person charged with a felony (and the rule must be the same whether the insanity be kleptomania or homicidal mania). If no charge of felony be pending the guardian appointed by the probate court has complete dominion under the orders of that court over his insane ward. But manifestly the guardian ought not to have such power in case his ward is charged with a felony, so that if he wish he can take his ward to Kansas or Kamschatka. The criminal court becomes interested in seeing that the insane accused is, and will be, within the jurisdiction of the court when he recovers, and that he be held at some accessible place within the court's jurisdiction, so that the fact as to whether he has recovered may be tested from time to time, if necessary. In the strict letter of our statutes the facts here present a casus omissus, in a sense. Sections 5207 et seq. apply only to cases of insanity occurring subsequent to indictment (State v. Church, 199 Mo. 605, 98 S.W. 16); sections 1430 et seq. apply to cases where, upon trial on an indictment, the accused is found to have been insane when he committed the offense. Here petitioner is said to have committed certain felonies; he is thereafter adjudged insane by the probate court, and afterwards formal complaints are filed charging him with said criminal offenses; a preliminary examination is held and the fact of his adjudication as an insane person is not mentioned before the examining magistrate, who, in ignorance of his status, holds him to bail and in default thereof commits him to the charge of the respondent sheriff.
We think the custody of the insane...
To continue reading
Request your trial