Mead v. Metcalf

• Decision Date: 20 January 1891
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: L. H. MEAD, RESPONDENT v. JOHN W. METCALF, APPELLANT

25 P. 729

7 Utah 103

L. H. MEAD, RESPONDENT v. JOHN W. METCALF, APPELLANT

Supreme Court of Utah

January 20, 1891

APPEAL from an order discharging L. W. Mead from custody made by Hon. James A. Miner, judge of the district court of the first district.

Appeal dismissed.

Mr. A R. Heywood, for the appellant.

Messrs Smith and Smith, for the respondent.

ZANE C. J. ANDERSON, J., and BLACKBURN, J., concurred.

OPINION

ZANE, C. J.:

The plaintiff was arrested for a violation of an alleged ordinance of Ogden City prohibiting dentists from practicing their profession without a license from a board of examiners appointed by the city council; and the court below discharged him after a hearing upon a writ of habeas corpus. From the order of discharge the defendant has prosecuted an appeal to this court, and the plaintiff moves the court to dismiss for the reason that the right of appeal does not exist from such an order.

When an individual is unlawfully deprived of his liberty a writ of habeas corpus is his most simple and speedy remedy. Under the statutes of Utah the writ may issue upon application of the prisoner or other person on his behalf, or the judge or court may issue the writ on his or its own motion upon sufficient evidence; and upon the return of the writ the statute requires the court or judge to proceed in a summary manner to hear the testimony and arguments, and to dispose of the prisoner as the case may require. And in all cases where the imprisonment is for a criminal offense, and the commitment may have been informal or without due authority, or the process may have been executed by a person not duly authorized, the court is authorized to make a new commitment, or admit the party to bail, if the case be bailable.

The duty of the judge or court upon such a hearing is similar to that of the magistrate upon a preliminary examination; and though the prisoner may be discharged, he may be again arrested for the same offense upon a sufficient showing. While the decision of the judge or court may liberate the prisoner from arrest, it does not determine his innocence. He may be indicted, tried, and convicted without regard to the discharge upon the writ of habeas corpus. Upon such a hearing the guilt or innocence of the prisoner of the crime charged, or of the right to reimprison him in consequence of it, cannot be finally determined. The order of his discharge simply releases him from the particular restraint to which he is subjected. Such a decision cannot convict him or acquit him of the crime, or determine his imprisonment in consequence of it. It is not final. Section 9 of the Organic Act of Utah Territory, provides that " writs of error, bills of exceptions, and appeal shall be allowed in all cases from the final decision of said district courts to the Supreme Court under such regulations as may be prescribed by law." And section 3635, vol. 2, Comp. Laws Utah 1888, provides that "an appeal may be taken to the Supreme Court ...