OCR Text |
Show HABEAS CO It PUS DECISION. JlJuioa of J.i.lUr C. M. Ilmtlry, Ot" l In-Supreme Court of I Itp Territory Terri-tory of I'tith. I' nit eh States op Amebica, Territory of Utah, i , County of Salt Lake, 1 1 In the matter of the application ol i George M. Walkor, in behalf ol j Hicham V. Hampton, Alexander! Hurl, James Toms and John L. j lilythe, for a writ of habms cor-1 puson the petition of said Walker; and, also, in the matter of the ap- j plication of Hosa Stout for a writ of habeas cf-rpus on the peti- lion of Geo. It. Maxwell. MY C. M. HAYVI.F.V, JI.'STH E. ; The said two petitions, and the re-! turn of the marshal respectively there-. to, present precisely the same facts. I The petitions allego that the taid Hampton, Hurt, Toms, Lily the and Stout are held in custody by M. T. fat rick, United Stales marshal fur said Territory, on the charge of murder, mur-der, without authority of law; that said Stout is charted with the murder of one Richard Vales, and the other four applicants with the murder of one J. K. Robinsou. The several returns of the marshal to tho writs of htibras corpus thow that ho holds the Baid Stout by a certain cer-tain warrant of commitment made by James B. McKean, judge of the third judicial district court of said Territory, and issued undar the seal of said cour, on the 'JSth day of October, A.D. 1S71, wherein is set lorth that the grand jury of the said court returned into said court their certain indictment indict-ment against the said Stout and others, charging them with, to wit, on the 15th day of November, A.D., 1S57, feloniously, wilfully, deliberately, pre-moditatedly pre-moditatedly and with malice aforethought, afore-thought, killing and murdering one Richard Yates contrary to the form of the statute of Utah in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the people of the United Slates in the Territory of Utah; and that he, tho paid marshal, was thereby commanded to take said Stout and safely keep, so that he have his body before the court forthwith to answer an-swer said indictment and be dealt with according to law; that he held the said Hampton, Hurt, Toms and Blythe under certain warrants of commitment, ono made by the said James U. Mc-Ivcan, Mc-Ivcan, judge of the said district court, issued on the day of ; A.D. 1S7 , under the seal of said court, charging them under a certain indictment found by the grand jury of said court, on tho day of A.D. Is6 , with the murder of the I said Robinson, in precisely the same tbrm and with like averments above-named, above-named, and containing like commands, etc.; and that the other warrant was made by the said James R. Mclvean, chief justice, etc., and judge of the said third judicial district court,wherc-in court,wherc-in is stated that the said Hampton, Burt, Toms and Blythe, on esamina-j lion before him, it appeared that they, on the day and year last mentioned, "fcloniouslj, wilfully, deliberately, pre-mcditatediy pre-mcditatediy and with malice aforethought, afore-thought, murdered one J. K. Robinson contrary to the staiute in such caso made and provided, etc.," and that j thereby he was commanded to take and keep their bodies, so that ho have them before ttio said district court at the next term thereof to answer unto such indictment as might be found against them, etc. Inasmuch as the same material facts and questions ot law govern botii ot said applications, I shall treat them as one and dispose of them together. There seems to be a needless conflict of opinions and proceedings growing out of the imprisonment of those against whom indictments have been found in tho Third Judicial District court of this Territory, now in custody. The rules of law governing the questions ques-tions now rabed, under our habeas corpus act, are plain and simple, being established to protect alike the rights of persons and of the public. This writ is not an absolute right of a person detained in custody, unless the applicant by his petition shows facts that establish his right thereto. If a person has been committed for the crime of murder cr other indictable offenee, by a court of general jurisdiction, jurisdic-tion, like our District courts, or by one of our District courts, neither of the other District courts with a like jurisdiction, juris-diction, nor cither of the other justices of our Supreme court, could go behind the writ of commitment to enquire into the regularity of the proceedings which led to tho commitment: for such proceedings pro-ceedings must be presumed to be regular, regu-lar, ana cannot be called in question in this collateral manner. If the rule was not thus restrictive, applications for writs of habeas cerjnts would be but a means of exposing or putting in peril, the public welfare and security to the worst of criminals indiotcd by courts of competent jurisdiction, as soon as indictments in-dictments were found, and thereby causing every criminal proceeding to result in the merest farce. 11 the writ of commitment fails to show affirmatively affirma-tively that the prisoner has committed or is charged therein as having committed com-mitted the crime named, or jf the al Ieged crime is not a crime under the law, then a court or judge of equal or competent jurisdiction under our stat-uto stat-uto would bo bound to issue the writ and to discharge the prisoner so held, and the officer holding the prisoner must bow to the mandate. If, however, a court that is clothed with general jurisdiction issues its writ of habeas corjms to an otlieer holding a prisoner under a warrant of commitment commit-ment of another court, having exclusive jurisdiction of the particular crime charged therein, then such oflicer need j anly make return of such fact, and thereupon he may respectfully refuse to produce the prisoner. If, however, a court or judjje, having no jurisdiction, jurisdic-tion, issues tne writ of ha'-uis corpus to an officer, to produce before a or him the body of a person he holds by a i warrant of commitment from a court of! general jurisdiction, then and in such ease there is no obligation upon the! officer to make even a return to the writ, and much less to produce the I prisoner. And should an officer so far ! tbreet hu duty and betray his trust, as to discharge a prisoner on the mandate j of such an incompetent court, 1 ami inchr-ed to think he would bo liable to f the charge of contempt before the I court that committed the prisoner. Writs of this character cannot be trilled with even under the color ol ! judicial proceedings, when such pro-j ceedings have no judicial authority to1 stand upon. j The reason for these rule.- of law is found in the fact, that, proceedings by I writs of luil as ivrpus are in the na-1 ture of a writ of review, and the court i or judec who issues this writ mu-t be clothed with supervisory powers in the i liven case; and as a matter of course it j cannot issue from an interior court, or' t'rom the judce of an inferior court, to i an officer holding a prisoner committed , by a court of general jurisdiction. ! In these statements of the law, I am j universally supported by the highest, authorities. We will quote a lew ol them. j Mr. LIurd in his work on habeas corpus, page :;M-2, says: "A i-uperist i court in the exercise of its revisory ju-; n.-Jiction, may discharge a prisoner , held under criminal process, where the j commitment is voidable only, or where ' the grounds of commitment are insufficient; insuffi-cient; but to justily this it must have, i bv its constitution, apptlliU jurUJic I twn in the given case, wd should eiert-1 its corrective power through process; dcgued to bring under review the ur-1 rors complained of, or the ground of. commitment." "Lt is not enough that it is a ivurt of i more extensive jurisdicion or of higher j dignity; it must have the power of re-1 vision in the particular case; the power j to correct or reverse the action of the, inferior court." "Tlui" it was held in! re Dimes, OS, Ku-, L. C. .V-J, that where a commitment was by a court over which the court is.-uing tlie writ oHi-il''" corpus had no appellate jurisdiction, juris-diction, the grounds of (be commitment commit-ment eould not be enquired into. " And the kings bench wouid not on lutli'tx L-f irtDs examine is to the correctness cor-rectness of the dcciiion of a commissioner commis-sioner in bankruptcy remanding the prisoner, "because it had no appellate power in wh a ca;:.;." See Kx parte Partington, Kmr , C. L 0-1. i "Nor will the writ be granted where the parly is held under a commitment ; of a co-ordinate court, on tho ground of j fraud on the court or collusion with the officers." See Kx parte Cobbi'tt, .VJ, Knif . C. L. I.-.R. "The court Nays Mr. llurd,) should exercise its corrective power by means j of process calculated to bring under rc-i rc-i view the errors complained of, or the j grounds of commitment. Tho pro:.'.-.- commonly employed for this purpose i.-s i.-s the writ oi' rfrtioran'.' "It is a rule Isays Air. llurtlj es.icntial to the etlt-eicnt etlt-eicnt administration of justice, that where a court is vested with jurisdic tion over the subject matter upon which it assir.ni h iu a.!tj and regularly obtains jurisdiction of the por&i:, it becomes its right and duly to determine every question which may arise in the cause, without, interference from any other tribunal." See llurd on hah. is rnrpui, page ,'io.", and the eases cited. This rule, I he add:- )( is without exception. ex-ception. A corrective jurisdiction may sometimes be exercised by a superior court, while the cause is pending in the inferior court. In England, the court of King's bench haviug a general superintendence' over all the courts of inferior criminal jurisdiction, may re move the proceedings from any of them, except some particular statute or charier invest them with absolute judicature; and this may be done at any stnge of the proceedings, but' is generally refused after issue joined. But this supervisory jurisdiction is exercised ex-ercised under the writ of certiorari, not that of habeas corpus" See 1 Chit. Crim. Liw, pages lito-akl. But when the cause of commitment is shown and the prisoner is in custody of a court of competent jurisdiction, not illegally as- ; sorted, the writ has lumiieu its oihec land the prisoner should be remand-' led." See llurd on Habeas Corpus, ; page o'M'u i "Where also (says Mr. Hurdl it is discovered that it vill interfere unnecessarily unne-cessarily with another competent and acting jurisdiction, it will he denied as an appropriate remedy : for it was never intended or designed to be used to frustrate or interrupt tho due course jof justice, nor to intermeddle with other judicial proceedings while a ready redress may be had by application to the tribunal whoso action may be the subject of complaint." See ib, page In the case of Peltier vs. Peuington, :li Green, page 'M2, chief justice Horu-j Horu-j blower said, "The writ on which the defendant is detained, is, in itself, a legal and proper one; the court out of ! which it issued is of competent juris-, juris-, diction. The matter in dispute is the regularity of the ptocess, and the validity val-idity of the arrest. These arc points that must and ought to be debated at bar before the court in which the cause Is pending. They ought not, by means of a habeas corpuv, to be drawn into discussion before a single judge at chambers. They are matters in the cause, upon which the parties havo a right to be heard before, and to have the opinion of all the judges composing the court." A dtlferent rule, says this learned judge, "would lead to ultcr I confusion in the prosecution of suits, and bring into conflict the different tribunals and officers of justice." Sec llurd on JIabens Corpus, page U'JS- In the case of The Commonwealth ts. Leckcy, 1 Watt 60, duel justice Gibson said, "The habeas corpus cor-pus is undoubtedly an immediate I remedy for every illegal imprisonment. But no imprisonment is illegal where the process isajuslihcalioa to tho officer; offi-cer; and process, whether by writ or warrant, is legal whenever it is not defective de-fective in the frame of it, and has issued is-sued in the ordinary course of justice from a court or magistrate having jurisdiction juris-diction of tho subject matter, though there have been error or irregularity in the proceeding previous to the issuing of it." In tho ease of Ableman vs. Booth, and tho United States vs. Booth, 21 Howard U. S., on page 520 of the opinion Taney, c. j., in delivering the opinion of the supreme court of the baited States, says: MAnd as regards the decisioD of tho district court, it had exclusive tnd final Jurisdiction by the laws of the United Slates; and neither the regularity of its proceedings nor the validity of its sentence could bo called in question in any court, either of a State or the United States, by habeas corpus or any other process." In the matter of the application of one Place for a writ oi' habeas corpus, it was held by the court of appeals of New York, that, "On hab:as corpus the judge be fore whom it is returnable will not review re-view the decision of a judge of tho supreme su-preme court- (which court answers to our district courts), that the warrant upon which the defendant was arrested was properly icsued, and the defendant was legally he'd, where the same objections ob-jections to the warrant, and arrest are relied on upon the issuing of the h ideas corpus. The remedy of tho defendant in such case is by o-rtiorari." See J'-i Howard I'rac. R., 2'K In the cae of the Bank cf the U. S. vs. Jenkins, IS John R,, uUo to 'MS, Spencer, c. j., speaking for the supreme court of New York, in a exsc where a ! person v;is Imprisoned on a ca. sa. by a court of competent jurisdiction on the! j ground that thc proceedings were ille-gal, ille-gal, said, "We are of the opinion that I the writ of halt j.s corpun is not the proper remedy lor the defendant in this lease, and shall not, therefore, discharge him from impri-soniueut on this writ." ! In the ca-e of the People us. Kelly, 1 Abbott Prae., N. S., 4-j.i, it was held, 'Where t he return to a hal-as corjuts shows a detainer under legal process, the only proper points for examination are the existence, validity, and present legal force of the proccts; except where, in commitment for criminal matters, the court or officer hearing the hibeas corpus is inve.-i.cd with a revisory or corrective jurisdiction over the court or officer commanding the imprisonment, and with a jurisdiction also over the offence, or subject -mamer of the commitment; com-mitment; in which case the tacts constituting con-stituting the grounds of the commitment commit-ment may be reviewed. This supervisory jurisdiction i-conferred by statute upon our district courts and judges over all tho proceedings proceed-ings ot our probate courts and justices ot' the peace. The same authority further says, the habeas corpus cannot have the force and operation of a writ of error, or a o rtijrari: nor is it designed as a substitute lor either, it does n;t, like j them, deal with errors or irregularities, which render a prceeeding voidable only; but with those radical ilfc;U is hick rauler it absibi( hj v-jui." In the ease of The I'eople is. Mc-Leod, Mc-Leod, -j Wend., the court decided, decid-ed, that, "When an indictment has been lbund, the court is pot authorized to go behind if, and inquire into the ! guilt or innocence of the prUouer." It j the warrant of commitment is legal or j sufficient upon its lace, then, as a mat- ! ter of course, that puts an end to the ' proceeding by habeas eorpus, and es-. es-. pecially so when it shows that the de-i de-i fendant has committed a crime indict-, indict-, able under the statute. At the pre-eut term of the Supreme court of the United States, in the ea.e i iiif the U. S. r.. Tarble, tho doctrine as I laid down by Taney, C. J,, in the ease ! of The United Stales vs. Booth, above ! cited is quoted as authority at the 1 present lime. The esparto case of rllosea Stout, recently decided by the Jsame high authority, affirms the gen-1 gen-1 oral rule as we have stated it to be. i Let us apply these principles of law to the ca-es under consideration: , The Third District court in which the applicants are shown and are admitted ad-mitted to wtand iudieted, beyond di.f-. di.f-. putc, is a court of general and competent compe-tent jurisdiction. This being so, the regularity of the proceedings therein, leading to the commitment of the ap-I ap-I plicants to the custody ol the marshal, cannot be reviewed or called in question, ques-tion, when the commitment is sufficient suffi-cient upon its lace, by a single judge at chambers in a collateral proceeding, i even by virtue of a writ ol habeas I ClTJIUS. nuj.niui vii ujii-iiaiu cuun, line our Supreme court, by writof certiorari, certiora-ri, may bring up the record of an in ferior court, and examine, correct, or reverse its judgments and set aside its proceedings, when founded in error; but this power is not pop for red upon a court or a judge of concurrent jurisdiction. jurisdic-tion. The regularity of tho proceedings of the third district court, in which said indictments were found, so far as this proceeding is eonocrned must be presumed pre-sumed to bo correct; for thoy are not before be-fore me, and cannot be be brought before be-fore me in this collateral proceeding to be examined or reviewed. Whether or not the said third judicial district court summoned eighteen jurymen, and impaneled fifteen for a grand jury, who found and returned into said court, the indictments, under the Territorial statute, stat-ute, or whether or not it sqmmoned and impaneled twenty-three lawful men for the grand jury, or whether or not they were summoned by the marshal for this Territory, or by tho Territorial marshal, I do not know, uud cannot enquire into in this collateral way.- 1 can only inspect the warrants of commitments com-mitments and judge of their sufficiency by what they contain, Our supreme court in deciding the case of Clinton et al, vs. Englcbrecht cl al. did not hold that tho jury qucs- tion was not a "rightful subject for legislation" on the part of the governor gover-nor and tho legislative assembly. On the contrary, it ci it tq be a ''rightful subject ol legislation." That our courts are bound to summon eighteen and to impanel fifteen lawful men for a grand jury I do nut doubt; and the supreme court of our Territory in said decision did uot doubt il; but it did hold; that the "mode," mm-: if, the "mode1 provided by the Territorial statute for selecting and summouing grand and petit jurors, was "impracticable;" "impracti-cable;" and simply because, ihey were to be selected by tho county court, a body body unknown to our judicial system, and to be summoned by the Territorial marshal, when there was no such officer duly appointed and coni-missioDcd coni-missioDcd by the governor, as required by the organic act. Tho grand jury question is not in tho Englebrecht case, ' except- by imputation; imputa-tion; and as the records of tho third judicial district court are not before me, aud camot be brought up by me while sitting at chambers in these collateral proceedings, by writ of certiorari or otherwise, I have no means of inspecting them, and as a matter of course cannot judge of their regularity or legality, but must presume pre-sume them lo be regular and valid. The third district court is now in session in this city, and the prisoners can, if they choose, apply to it by motion, mo-tion, or for a writ of habeas corpus for the relief they ask; and that court is competent to look into its own pro-. pro-. cecdings, and vacate or set aside any and all errors, if any there be, in tho proceedings by which these prisoners have been indicted and committed for trial for the great orimo of murder; mur-der; and I have no doubt but their motion or prayer for relief ivould bo considered, and that if it appears therefrom, that their imprisonment has been ordered upon irregular or invalid proceedings, they will one and all be at once discharged. And betide, it is admitted, that Mr. Stout, one of the prisoners, has been by appeal before the supreme court of the United States, praying for a discharge from his imprisonment imprison-ment by reason of tho identical writ of commitment now presented as the one by which he is held in custody, and that high court of last resort, has refused his discharge; and it would not only bp out of my province, and jurisdiction to grant tho relief which that court refused, but the height of presumption for mo to interfere with their decision. And finding tho warrant of commitment commit-ment by which tho balance of the prisoners pris-oners aro held, is of the same character charac-ter in substance and form, as that by which Mr, Stout was, and is now held, 1 must conclude tuat they too, must be left to abide the Hamc result. The motion made in behalf of said prisoners prison-ers to dismiss these proceedings and that they be remanded, under the principles laid down cut no figure in the ease, nnd therefore, it is unnecessary unneces-sary io discuss that motion, for the prisoners have obtained the effect of the motion. Holding these views, and from these considerations, the prayer of the applicants appli-cants must be denied, and tho prisoners prison-ers must bo and are accordingly remanded re-manded to custody. |