Stone's Case
Stone's Case
Opinion of the Court
The prisoner was arrested after sunset on February 7, 1880, on an execution issued against him for costs. He was taken before a magistrate authorized to administer the oath for the relief of poor debtors, and, being interrogated, declared that he did not wish to take any oath, nor to recognize, nor to give bail. He was thereupon committed to jail. On February 14, he recognized with surety to deliver himself up for examination before some magistrate authorized to act, within thirty days from the day of his arrest, and was thereupon discharged from custody. On March 2, he was surrendered by his surety, and kept in custody by the jailer. On the same day a writ of habeas corpus was issued in his behalf.
The prisoner contends that his imprisonment is unlawful, because his arrest after sunset was not specially authorized by a magistrate. His argument rests on an erroneous construction of the Gen. Sts. c. 124, § 8. The main purpose of that chapter of the statutes is to regulate arrests on mesne process, and on executions issued for debt or damages in civil actions. The first three sections prescribe the conditions on which defendants may be arrested on mesne process. Section 4 relieves officers from responsibility for not making arrests when not specially required to do so.
Section 6 provides that no affidavit shall be required to authorize arrest on an execution issued for costs only, but that the debtor arrested shall be committed, Unless he requires the officer to take him before a magistrate authorized to administer the poor debtor’s oath, and that all other proceedings in relation to the debtor shall be in conformity with the provisions of the chapter relative to arrests on other executions.
Section 7 provides that no woman shall be arrested on any civil process, except for tort.
Section 8 is in these words: “ Ho arrest shall be made after sunset, unless specially authorized by the magistrate making the certificate, upon-satisfactory cause shown.”
The provisions of this chapter of the statutes are in restraint of the general power of arrest on mesne process and on execution, and the prisoner must show that his arrest was in violation of them, in order to be entitled to a discharge from imprisonment. Hildreth v. Brigham, 12 Allen, 71. In our opinion, the eighth section of.the chapter has no application to arrests on executions issued for costs only. As applied to them, the clause of the section which creates an exception to the general rule that no arrest shall be made after sunset is insensible, because the affidavit required in other cases is not required in this, and no magistrate makes any certificate. The creditor on an execution for costs only cannot bring himself within the case which the statute requires in order to the making of the affidavit and certificate. There is never due on his execution the amount of twenty dollars exclusive of costs. Hor is there any force in the suggestion that because this is so, because the certificate cannot be had, no arrest after sunset can be made on the execution for
The prisoner was lawfully arrested, and the proceedings since his arrest have not been such as to entitle him to a discharge. He must therefore be Remanded.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Julius Stone's Case
- Status
- Published