Show FIGHT IN COURTS Writ of Extradition is Not Signed by Judge Locombe New York Aug 13 Judge Lacombe of the United State court today refused to sign the writ of extradition for Charles FW Neely on account of the action of Judge Wallace In granting an appeal to the Supreme court In the habeas corpus proceedings but indicated I indi-cated that he did not think Judge Wallace I Wal-lace understood the real situation of the case and ho believed that if it went I I I to the Supreme court in its present shape the application Cora writ of habeas corpus would be denied V A citation in the Neely case signed by Judge William J Wallace was filed In the clerks ofllce of the United States court today The citation calls upon Henry L Burnett United States District Dis-trict Attorney and William A Ilenkel United States Marshal to appear before be-fore the Supreme court of the United States In Washington on September 7th next pursuant to a citation of April 1th In which Charles FY Neely Is the appellant and Marshal Kenkel the appellee to show cause why the final order of the Circuit court the said petition pe-tition of appeal should not bo corrected and speedy justice should not bo done In that behalf In refusing to sign the extradition V writ Judge Lacombe said in part I came here this morning to sign an or tier putting Neely In custody under an V act passed by Congress June 6th last I providing the Government make a dis position of the two suits under which orders of arrest still stand against him I find however that the exceptional step of the prisoners counsel has pro duced 0 most peculiar situation a complication com-plication that so far as I know has never before existed In connection with extradition cases V connccton Judge Wallace of this court has been applied to for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground among others that the actor Tune 6th Is unconstitutional I The writ of habeas corpus was asked in order that the constitutionality of the act and to rosfore to liberty a prisoner pris-oner alleged to be held under It But the act of June lib does not apply here No onels restrained of his liberty under un-der that act I never Issued an order uuthorltng his holding under tho actor act-or June 6th Now the proceeding ask proccedinsask ing a writ of habeas corpus has been refused an appeal taken and an order issued by Judgo Wallace remanding the prisoner remandlnb I do not know upon what Information Informa-tion Judge Wallace acted Nor can Ice I-ce what else can happen to the appeal When it reaches the United States Supreme Su-preme court except that they will dismiss dis-miss it ar being brought upon Insufficient cient grounds Habeas corpus cannot be availed of under the act until some proceedings arc held under the acL And I have been careful all along to allow the order of arrest In the civil suit to stand and not to attempt to put him under the provisions of the new act I certainly shall not take any acton ac-ton which will turn over to a foreign country or another State it matters not which n prisoner who Is held here under un-der an order of arrest In n civil or criminal crim-inal section until such actions shall have been dlncontlnucd V This position I have taken from the beginning I shall not allow the prlf oner to be remanded until we have got through with him I will assent to V no proposition that will take the prisoner out of tho Jurisdiction of this court at I V the call of any tribunal lon garth |