State v. Simmons

• Decision Date: 02 May 1905
• Parties: STATE ex rel. HIETT v. SIMMONS, County Judge.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

87 S.W. 35

112 Mo. App. 535

STATE ex rel. HIETT v. SIMMONS, County Judge.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 2, 1905.

HABEAS CORPUS—JURISDICTION TO ISSUE WRIT —DISCHARGE OF PRISONER— REVIEW ON APPEAL.

1. Under Rev. St. 1899, § 3546, authorizing an application for a writ of habeas corpus to be made to some court of record in term, or to any judge thereof in vacation, a judge of the county court has authority in vacation to issue a writ of habeas corpus, and to pass upon the application of the petitioner for discharge.

2. The erroneous discharge of a prisoner on habeas corpus by a court having jurisdiction to issue the writ and pass upon the application for a discharge cannot be reviewed on certiorari.

Certiorari by the state, on the relation of W. L. Hiett, against L. C. Simmons, judge of the county court of Texas county. Dismissed.

W. L. Hiett, in pro. per.

Opinion.

GOODE, J.

W. L. Hiett is the prosecuting attorney of Texas county, and L. C. Simmons the presiding judge of its county court. On the application of said prosecuting attorney, this court granted a writ of certiorari to said Simmons, in his official capacity, commanding him to transmit here the petition and all the proceedings in a certain cause pending before him as judge, wherein Wm. H. Brooks petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus. The writ of certiorari was granted by this court March 22, 1905. On the same day, and before service of said writ on the respondent, he ordered the discharge of the petitioner, Brooks, in the habeas corpus proceeding pending before him, and the prisoner was discharged. The petition for the writ of habeas corpus was presented to respondent about March 17th, and the prosecuting attorney, Hiett, applied a few days afterward to this court for the writ of certiorari; having previously applied to Hon. L. B. Woodside, judge of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, of which Texas county is a part. On the return of the writ of certiorari issued by the circuit judge, the latter quashed the certiorari proceeding. It does not clearly appear whether the respondent, Simmons, knew application had been made to this court for a writ at the time he discharged the prisoner or not. The facts out of which the controversy between the prosecuting attorney of Texas county and the presiding justice of the county court arose will be stated. William H. Brooks, who petitioned the respondent for his liberty, was in the custody of the jailer of that county under two commitments issued on two separate convictions of said Brooks before R. P. Hubbard, justice of the peace of Texas county, for two distinct misdemeanors. On February 20, 1905, said Brooks was convicted of a misdemeanor, fined $50, and the costs of the prosecution assessed against him, to the amount of $37.90. The justice issued a mittimus on that conviction February 23d, and by virtue of it Brooks was taken into the custody of the sheriff and jailer of the county, Aaron Wood, and imprisoned until March 11th. On February 22d Brooks was convicted before the same justice of the peace for another offense, fined $200, and $47 costs assessed against him. The justice issued a mittimus on this conviction February 23d, commanding the jailer to take Brooks and keep him safely imprisoned until the fine and costs were paid, or he was otherwise discharged in due course of law. Under this commitment Brooks was incarcerated February 3, 1905. On March 11, 1905, the county court of Texas county entered an order of record directing the sheriff to release Brooks from custody under both commitments, and that he be placed in charge of R. W. Williams and J. W. Ormsby, to whom he (Brooks) had been hired by the county court for the period of five months at $20 a month. Williams and Ormsby gave a bond of $200 for the payment of the stipulated wages for Brooks' services, and, as said, the jailer was ordered to put the prisoner in their charge. In making this order the county court assumed to act under the authority of section...