In re Wheeler

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
• Writing for the Court: JOHNSTON, J.:
• Citation: 34 Kan. 96,8 P. 276
• Decision Date: 09 October 1885
• Parties: In the matter of the Petition of GEORGE H. WHEELER for a writ of Habeas Corpus

8 P. 276

34 Kan. 96

In the matter of the Petition of GEORGE H. WHEELER for a writ of Habeas Corpus

Supreme Court of Kansas

October 9, 1885

Original Proceedings in Habeas Corpus.

PETITION for a writ of habeas corpus, filed in this court June 24, 1885, by George H. Wheeler against Samuel Thompson, as sheriff of Brown county. The writ prayed for was issued and made returnable before the supreme court, on July 8, 1885. The material facts are stated in the opinion herein, filed October 9, 1885.

Petitioner remanded.

W. D. Webb, for petitioner.

JOHNSTON, J. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION [8 P. 277]

[34 Kan. 97] JOHNSTON, J.:

This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus by George H. Wheeler, in which he alleges that he is illegally deprived of his liberty by the sheriff of Brown county. The petitioner was charged by Ida E. Robbins, an unmarried woman, with being the father of a bastard child of which she was pregnant, and at a trial in the district court a jury found him to be the father of such child, and he was adjudged by the court to pay to the relatrix, Ida E. Robbins, for the support of the child, the sum of $ 1,000, in twenty equal installments of $ 50 each. It was also adjudged that he should secure the payment of the $ 1,000 by good and sufficient sureties to be approved by the clerk of the court, and in default thereof that he should be committed to the jail of Brown county. The return made by the sheriff shows that the petitioner has failed to comply with the judgment of the court, and that he is now held by virtue of a commitment issued upon such judgment. The petitioner alleges that his restraint is illegal, for the reason that the several provisions of the bastardy act which provide for imprisonment are in violation of § 16 of the bill of rights in the constitution, which is that "No person shall be imprisoned for debt except in cases of [34 Kan. 98] fraud." That part of the bastardy act which provides for the enforcement of the judgment of the court reads as follows:

"SEC. 13. Such court shall, on finding or confession, render such judgment and make such order as may seem just for securing the maintenance and education to such child, by the annual payment to the mother, or if she be dead or an improper person to receive the same, to such other person as the court may direct, and of such sum or sums of money as the court may order, payable at such time or times as may be adjudged proper. The judgment shall specify the terms of payment, and shall require of such defendant, if he be in custody, to secure the payment of such judgment by good and sufficient sureties; or in default thereof, he shall be committed to jail until such security be given."

It is urged in behalf of the petitioner that this and other sections of the act that provide for commitment to the county jail come within the prohibition of the constitution above quoted. We think not. There are many forms of liability that do not constitute a debt in the technical and legal sense of that term. Imprisonment for debt as here used has a...