Show HABEAS conrus I rnmeuis to Detemune if Cattle Stealing is Grnmi Larceny I I The argument on the writ of habeas I corpus in the matter of Clayton Gannett Gan-nett and Alexander Ogelvie now serving II serv-ing a two years sentence in the penitentiary pen-itentiary for cattle stealing were made I in the supreme court yesterday I Attorneys S A King and D D Houtz of Provo appeared for the petitioners I pe-titioners and United States District I Attorney Judd and Assltant District I Attorney Howat for the people ami against the granting of the writ The petitioners were found guilty of stealing five cows and five steers the property of Frank Rush of Savier county The application for the writ is based on the theory that the men arcs illegally ille-gally deprived of their liberty for the reason that the indictment charges no offense greater than petit larceny because be-cause the value of the stolen property I is not stated in the indictment The argument is that a portion of the statute of 1876 defining grand larceny lar-ceny was unwittingly repealed by t < ha act of 1886 and the latter pant was repealed re-pealed in 1890 under the supposition that such action would leave the act of 1S76 in full force which was not however the case as the 1876 act was partly repealed by the act of 1SSC The defense took the position that the indictment was regular and Judge Howat said that if the writ was sustained sus-tained it would have the effect of de claring1 that cattle stealing in this territory ter-ritory was no crime under the statutes Their honors after hearing the arguments ar-guments took the matter under advisement advise-ment |