Poor Debtors

By the constitution the several states and territories, or by laws which exist for the relief of poor ors, it is provided in general terms that shall be no imprisonment for debt. this is usually qualified by provisions the arrest of debtors in certain enumerated cases of fraud. The statutes in the different states are very similar, and as a rule, quire the creditor to make affidavit that debtor is about to remove some of his erty out of the jurisdiction of the court intent to defraud his creditors, or that, the same reason, he is about to dispose has disposed of his property, or that he fraudulently conoealing it; or that the concerning which suit is brought, was writ Imprisonment for debt has been generally to prohibited by constitutional provision. In Cow- some states it is conditioned upon the debtor delivering up bis property for the benefit of his creditors. It was substantially abolishthe ed in England in 1869. Un- It may be stated generally that the object the of such statutes is to induce the defendant ac- to pay the debt, give security, or take advan- 2 tage of the insolvent laws or of some enact- Bac. ments made especially for the relief of poor 5); debtors. It follows therefore that in most 216; of the states a person under arrest for debt may obtain his release in any of these ways. de- A poor debtor is usually compelled to resort Com. to one of the two last mentioned, and, al- See though the proceedings differ in the different slates, yet as a rule he is released upon decon- livering his property to a trustee, or taking com- oath that he has not more than ten or twenall ty dollars above the amount exempted by statute in the particular state in which he is confined. ex- Statutes authorizing imprisonment of one who obtains food and lodging without payas ing therefor, with intent to defraud, are conmeans stitutional; Ex parte Mileeke, 52 Wash. 312, are 100 Bac. 743, 21 B. R. A. (N. S.) 259, 132 com- Am. St. Rep. 968; Ex parte King. 102 Ala. 182, 15 South. 524; State v. Yardley, 95 Twin. 546, 32 S. W. 481, 34 B. R. A. 656. They are usually held to impose the penalty, not because of or for the purpose of collecting the debt, but because of the fraud; State v. Benson, 28 Minn. 424, 10 N. W. 471; State ex- v. Yardley, 95 Tenn. 546, 32 S. W. 481, 34 L. Wis. R..A. 656; State v. Engle, 156 Ind. 339, 58 of N. E. 698. the