Ex parte Ellis

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1858Published

Before: Terry

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The Supreme Court held that it will not issue a writ of habeas corpus for a petitioner held in a different county unless the petitioner demonstrates good cause, such as the absence, disability, or refusal of the local judge to act. The Court maintains discretion to deny such applications when the petitioner fails to first seek relief from the appropriate local judicial officers.

Issues

Whether the Supreme Court is obligated to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner held in a different county without a showing of good cause.
Whether the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus by the Supreme Court in term time is a matter of right or judicial discretion.

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“we conclude that the writ of habeas corpus should not issue to run out of the county, unless for good cause shown”

“The mere caprice of the prisoner ought not to prevail against the interests of the people and the public convenience.”

Synopsis

The writ of habeas corpus should not issue to run out of the county, unless for good cause shown ; as the absence, disability or refusal to act of the local Judge, or other reason, showing that the object and reason of the law requires its issuance.

If the local Judge refuses to act, then resort may be had to officers out of the county. The Legislature can never have intended that a party imprisoned under sentence of conviction for a misdemeanor, should have the privilege of selecting from the judiciary of the whole State the individual to whom he prefers to make his application, however distant from the place of his detention, and compel the officer having him in charge to convey him, at the expense of the county.

It is the duty of the courts to execute all laws according to their true intent and meaning : that intent, when collected from the whole and every part of the statute taken together, must prevail, even over the literal sense of the terms, and control the strict letter of the law, when the letter would lead to possible injustice, contradiction and absurdity.

Eiekd, J.—Although the Supreme Court may issue the writ of habeas corpus, its allowance in term time is not obligatory, but rests in the sound legal discretion of the Court. To allow it may be obligatory upon the Judges in their individual capacity.

Terry, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court— Baldwin, J., concurring.

Petitioner alleges that he is held in custody by the Sheriff of El Dorado County, under a warrant of commitment issued by a Justice of the Peace of the county, upon a conviction for a misdemeanor. He also alleges that the Justice acted without jurisdiction; that the act for which he was convicted constitutes no offense in law; and he asks a writ of habeas corpus returnable before the Supreme Court.

The statute provides that the “ writ of habeas corpus maybe granted by the Supreme Court or any Judge thereof, or any District or County Court in term time, or by any Judge of such at any time, whether in term or vacation.”

It also provides that the writ shall issue without delay ; that it shall be served without delay, and that the Judge or Court who issued it shall immediately after the return proceed to hear and examine, etc.

In considering this application, a construction of the Act concerning habeas corpus will be necessary, in view of the frequency with which applications for the writ are made to this tribunal on the part of persons in custody in other counties.

A familiar rule in the construction of statutes is to give effect to the meaning and intention of the law maker ; this may be gathered from the reason of the statute : “ The motives which led to the making of it, the object in contemplation at the time the Act was passed.” (Smith Com. 634.) Puffendorf says, that which helps us most in the discov[224]ery of the true meaning of the law is the reason of it, or the cause which moved the Legislature to enact it.

The object of the statute concerning habeas corpus was.to afford all persons illegally restrained of personal liberty an adequate and speedy remedy; therefore, in such cases, full and ample jurisdiction is given to all judicial officers except Justices of the Peace; and a speedy remedy to the party imprisoned is provided, by having in each county of the State at least one officer authorized to afford all the relief given by the statute.

The Legislature can never have intended that a party imprisoned under sentence of conviction for a misdemeanor should have the privilege of selecting from the judiciary of the whole State the individual to whom he prefers to make his application, however distant from the place of his detention, and compel the officer having him in charge to convey him, at the expense of the county, it may be from San Diego to Klamath, in order that he might avail himself of a remedy which the local Judge of his county was equally authorized to grant.

Ex parte Ellis

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief