Willis v. Bayles

• Decision Date: 17 February 1886
• Citation: 5 N.E. 8,105 Ind. 363
• Parties: Willis v. Bayles.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

105 Ind. 363

5 N.E. 8

Willis

v.Bayles.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Filed February 17, 1886.

Appeal from Sullivan circuit court.

S. C. Coulson, J. C. Briggs, and W. C. Hultz, for appellant.

Shelton & Bays and W. S. Maple, for appellee.

Howk, J.

In this case the appellee, Bayles, filed his verified complaint in the court below, alleging that he was unlawfully restrained of his liberty and held in custody by the appellant, Willis, sheriff of Sullivan county, and praying for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus in his behalf. The writ was accordingly issued and delivered to the appellant, who made return thereof in writing, and produced, in court, the body of the appellee. Written exceptions were filed by appellee to appellant's return, which were sustained by the court; and, upon appellant's failure to amend his return, the court ordered and adjudged that appellee be discharged from his custody. Appellant has assigned errors here, which call in question the decisions of the circuit court (1) in overruling his motion to quash the writ; (2) in sustaining appellee's exceptions to his return or answer; and (3) in discharging the appellee from custody.

In habeas corpus proceedings, a motion to quash the writ tests the sufficiency of the complaint or application whereon the writ was issued. McGlennan v. Margowski, 90 Ind. 150;Milligan v. State, 97 Ind. 355. In his verified complaint, appellee alleged that he was a citizen of this state, residing in the town and county of Sullivan; that he was unlawfully restrained of his liberty and held in custody by appellant, the sheriff of such county, in the county jail; that the cause and pretense of his restraint, according to his best information and belief, was a certain pretended commitment or execution against appellee's body, commanding his arrest and imprisonment, issued by one Jacob N. Land, a justice of the peace of Haddon township, in Sullivan county, upon a certain affidavit filed before one Owen Davis, a justice of the peace of Hamilton township, in such county, for a capias ad satisfaciendum by one John W. McCoskey; that such cause and pretense was wholly untrue, and such restraint was illegal, in this, to-wit: First, that there was no judgment against appellee upon which an execution against his body could be legally issued; second, that the justice of the peace, Jacob N. Land, had no authority to issue such commitment or execution against the body of appellee; third, that the writ upon which appellee was arrested was wholly illegal and void,-all of which facts were true, as appellee was informed and believed. Wherefore, etc.

It is claimed by appellant's counsel, that appellee's verified complaint did not state facts sufficient to entitle him to the issue of the writ of habeas corpus. Section 1108, Rev. St. 1881, declares that such a complaint “shall specify- First, by whom the person in whose behalf the writ is applied for is restrained of his liberty, and the place where, naming all the parties if they are known, or describing them if they are not known; second, the cause or pretense of the restraint, according to the best of the knowledge and belief of the applicant; third, if the restraint be alleged to be illegal, in what the illegality consists.” Appellee's complaint in this case, the substance of which we have given, complies substantially with these statutory requirements. The facts stated therein made a prima facie case in his favor, which authorized the issue of a writ of habeas corpus as prayed for, and were abundantly sufficient, we think, to withstand appellant's motion to quash the writ. Milligan v. State, supra; Ex parte Lawler, 28 Ind. 241;Flora v. Sachs, 64 Ind. 155. The motion to quash the writ was correctly overruled.

The next error complained of in argument, on behalf of appellant, is the sustaining of the exceptions to his return or answer to the writ of habeas corpus issued in this cause. In his return or answer the appellant said that on the third day of September, 1885, one John W. McCoskey obtained a judgment against appellee for $122.70, and costs of suit, which judgment was duly rendered by and before Owen Davis, a justice of the peace of Sullivan county, duly and lawfully authorized in that behalf to try and determine, in an action wherein McCoskey was plaintiff and appellee was defendant, which judgment was still in full force, unpaid, and not appealed from; that after the rendition of such judgment, appellee having failed and refused to pay or stay the same, McCoskey duly and legally instituted proceedings for a capias ad satisfaciendum against appellee, before Owen Davis, as such justice, charging appellee with fraudulently concealing, withholding, transferring, and secreting certain property, moneys, rights, credits, and choses in action, subject to execution, with intent to cheat, defraud, and delay him, McCoskey, in the collection of such judgment debt; that appellee appeared on the third day of September, 1885, in answer to such proceeding, and moved the justice to change the venue of the proceeding from Hamilton township, where the proceeding was then pending, and filed an affidavit in support of such motion; that upon such application the venue of such proceeding was changed to Haddon township, in such county, and the cause was sent to Jacob N. Land, a justice of the peace in such township; that on the sixth day of October, 1885, the appellee and McCoskey each appeared, in person and by counsel, at the hour set for trial, before Justice Land, who had competent authority to try and determine the cause; that, by agreement of the parties, the cause was tried by a jury of 11 good and true men, who were duly sworn to try the same, and a true verdict render therein, according to law and the evidence; that said cause having been then and there submitted to such court and jury, and the evidence having been heard, and the arguments of counsel made, and such jury being fully advised, and having retired to their room to deliberate of their verdict, “and their minds and understandings being enlightened,” they afterwards on said day returned into such court their verdict and finding for the plaintiff, McCoskey, against the defendant, Bayles, “that said Bayles fraudulently withheld, concealed, transferred, and removed the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars, in money, belonging to him, the said Bayles, with intent to defraud and delay said judgment creditor, John W. McCoskey;” that thereupon, such justice then and there rendered judgment upon such verdict in said cause, according to law, said Bayles having then and there refused and failed to pay over and surrender such money, or any part thereof, for the benefit of said plaintiff, or to pay such judgment; that thereupon such justice then and there issued on such judgment an execution against the body of John N. Bayles, setting out a copy of such execution, and then and there delivered the same to Andrew J. Latshaw, a constable in and for such township of Haddon, then and there duly qualified and acting as such; that...