| Show THE COURTS decision DECI IV V THE cake CAE territory or util I 1 1 ihirg NJ mancl arch term court 1871 arx parte salt lal acty J OPINION or OF CHIEF JUSTICE JAMES B II 11 y agreement of counsel the prisoner was nas brought into court and nd his is counsel mule made a motion for bu discharge disc diec charge b or go from custody cn the lio same ass a though a writ of habeas cor corpus pits had been issued and returned return cJ the 1 he warrant of commitment hy by which the tha prisoner is u held wm wan not produced on the argument but from the statement of counsel the facts appear to be as i follows two or three weeks before the time ot of making this motion ton shot and killed a man in ophir city east canyon vi win m T barber barbee justice of the peace of that chati place caused his big arrest and after examina tion ion committed him tor for murder I 1 to wait await the action of a grand jury of the third district acci court L I 1 It lacem seems s that the warrant of commitment was directed to lie he states slates marshal that it did not the prison in ia which harrington arrington II should bekert be kept that tb the marshal tool took the prisoner to camp douglas couglas a united states military post near salt lale lake city and that colonel morrow the comma commandant dt of the post received slid ami now keeps tho the prisoner lix in custody T the e prisoners counsel dispute the juried jurisdiction action of the justice of the peace and object to the warrant of commit because it is 13 directed to the united states slates marshal because it does not point out the place of imprisonment and because the prisoner is now ready to la answers answer c ditc itc to they move on these grounds that II arring ton on be a discharged C 11 II U V 3 attorney for or the people A and V A witcher fur for the oner cr C J abo term of cobit tt at which this motion amade ia made is not dot a jary dry term that fact disposes of the argument that the prisoner is now ready to answer aea A justice of the peace ages iges jors jurisdiction uris diction to make arrest examina ions eions rind and commitments for offenses enemies even against tile the laws lairs of the up united cited states plates it aill u ill not be seriously contended that lie he can not exercise the same power in case of of offen fences cea against the laws of the state or territory of which he is ia a lawful magistrate 1 I stal slat at af lary eChop 20 sic sc 33 p av 91 1602 Jlii dp see sec 4 treatise 5 ed tho the not act conferring similar powers upon U S commissioners I 1 ners does beis not repeat repeal the acts under which justices of the peace ex erciso those powers in federal cases 5 slat 51 6 and sea 1 if in a state stat c justices of the peace are allowed to se act t in in this dual capacity most certainly in a Terri territory wry they should be required to do ma the distinction between the file federal and state jurisdictions under the conditi tulion of the united states state ha hi DI no I 1 foundation in these territorial j div ai ern ments and rl no such buch dittin stion tion C exists either cither in te re to ti tile the jurisdiction of if their courts or the subjects submitted to their C cognisance zance tenner ts is putter 9 vote I 1 the he j justice ustice of tile alie peace who committed com mittel the prisoner hid had complete comet IM et alu jurk r Ls te diction tion both of the perron and of t abo b u matter was waa tho the warrant of commitment dir directed acted to tho proper officer the prisoner moner was I 1 ti be held in custody to await action in ia lis district court the supreme court has held that itha the united marshal is the only executive officer of the district courts see the ae united states us ex id i cl orr va r even in the states justice of the peace may in some cases cages direct the mitti to I 1 I 1 a con cona stable to a elie sheriff riff or to the united states stated marshal treatise 5 cd GOO COO 2 1 ar An AboUt grim crint 47 ef cl bel without Yil bout saying that it would have been wrong to have directed the ibe prows process to a constable it was clearly right to direct it to the tha marshal I 1 should the commitment have out the place ol of imprisonment 7 under those state statutes mch merely require that the defendant should be committed to firlan it is a ct customary omary to take lim him to tile common jail or to whatever place is i provided by law or b by y the for the detention of at prisoners but when there is a place thas lillis provided it is ig no doubt the better belter way to designate dc ignat it in the commitment 1 jl I Arch Archbo botTs lilt ariot proc T ta 5 47 ct cl sesto A prisoner can not complain of the place in which be is u LED imprisoned sool d ad on the ground that it is tris not tho 9 place provided by law unless there is 13 er place provided bylaw by lw la in this rase no BO attempt has been made to show that there is u rocia oan other place t nor coald it be dorle donaa the united states State hard no DO prison id ia utah the therefore need not and could not point out the tc place of im should the ishall the court ther therefore let the boner go free is sf no means it is 13 alie if a d duty I 1 fly of tile ilia Mareli il it in huth a oni on ca i to provide a anil and a buffi ciciA force burce lor for t alic it a im ins or of tile the accused E even ven at cougdon cou iDon liaw edivani anil without this ibis would be his duty duly lot but Congi has enjoined it upon apon liim him 1 I 1 of at lajqi 3 id I 1 IJ id Cm lings treatise 5 bit 20 1 aa abbots aa dir cs if necessary lie mir mar ashal must even make hin hig a on n home a prison day v brett C G jan 22 it is fortunate for the ends of justice that prisoners prito ners can be put into so PC ft e ure cure a place as all camp douglas the motion for tho the discharge of II 11 arrington is denied |
