The petitioner represents, that he is imprisoned and deprived of his liberty by the Sheriff of the Criminal Court, who keeps him in the parish prison, at the suit of James Reed and Turner & Renshaw, under a pretended judicial order of the District Court, a copy of which is annexed. He avers, that this order is informal, and illegally obtained and executed, and is no sufficient legal warrant or commitment for the imprisonment of his person. That said process is not in the name of the State, and does not mention any adequate cause of detention for an indefinite term, and is not directed to any competent functionary ; that it does not designate the period and place of imprisonment, and is deficient in all the legal requisites of a legal anti valid warrant. He further states, that the sum of three dollars and fifty cents per week, the sum allowed by law for the use of a debtor in confinement, has not been paid by any one since his confinement in the month of July last. He, therefore, asks for a writ of habeas corpus, and that the Sheriff show under what process, and for what cause, he is detained, and that he be discharged.
The first writ, or commitment returned .under which the petitioner is held, is an order of the District Court, made in July, 1843, which states, that Powell had neglected and refused, after due notice of an order or judgment of said court, rendered at the instance of Reed, and Turner & Renshaw, to comply with it, by filing a schedule or statement of his affairs, wherefore the court orders that, in pursuance of the 6th section of the act of 1840 abolishing imprisonment for debt, the said Powell be imprisoned until he shall comply with the aforesaid judgment, directing him to file the schedule or statement of his affairs. The other two writs or commitments it is not necessary to notice, as the Judge below did not examine them or give any judgment on them, considering the first commitment or order of arrest sufficient to authorize him to remand the petitioner.
So far as we can ascertain the facts of the case from the record, which is very meagre, and the statements of the counsel in the briefs filed, it seems that Reed, and Turner & Renshaw, had commenced proceedings against the petitioner, under the 5th section of the act of 1840 abolishing imprisonment for debt, (Sess. Acts, p. 132,) to compel him to file a statement of his affairs and a schedule, preparatory to compelling him to make a surrender. A judgment to that effect was rendered, and notified to him. He neglected or refused for more than ten days to comply with the judgment, and has never appealed from it, so far as we are informed. The attention of the court being called to this neglect, or refusal to obey, by the counsel for the creditors, the order to imprison him was made, in conformity to the 6th section of the before mentioned act. This section gives the power in such a case to imprison, and no limitation is prescribed except a compliance with the judgment. Under this last order, or decree, the petitioner is confined. The Judge refused to discharge him, and he has appealed.
Judgment affirmed.