| Show H Ht HI GLAY CLA V PIERCE IS 15 RE REApplication REMANDED Application for fOl Writ of Habeas Corpus Denied by U Ii S Cir Circuit Circuit cult Judge Adams St Louis LouiR Mo 00 May a 15 II Clay lut Pierce chairman of ot tho thu board of ot tho lie Water teu Oil OJ company Wits was to today duty day remanded to tIle Iho custody cU of oC her dier herIn hIT In of at Texas to answer to In an nit Indictment perjury JI by a de Ie decision rendered this morning by Judge ludge Adams In ill tho the United Unite States SillIes circuit court coutt Judge Adam today denied tile the th ap RI application of ot Mr ir 11 foi tOI 01 a n writ of or habeas corpus WAlI D IN TEXAS X XII Mr II Pierce 1 Is Iii wanted In Tens to toun un 1111 to an on Indictment charging per perUny Uny In an au affidavit I made by him hint In III May Ate 1900 to tho effect that tIme tho Wat Oil company was wan not aray a ray orty to tn any pool trust confederation Ji ur combination I In III restraint of o truLl After ter Judge Adams had earl hut hll decision Atty that tho execution or of tho the courts order ho 10 li till 2 I thin tills lo to enable him to de dl deolde aide olde whether to an cli appeal ml lo 10 lothe t tile the States court of o or III to 10 thu Iho court Judge JudKo Ail mm granted tho lie request Atty It ttY tho state of uI lexa a k d that t tint thu th court A tIle the bond of ot S 1 under which was WOH from ass t tid dy whon when h hi hit l oil ou May S hilt but Judge J Q Adams that tho th bond would i at Sit amount until 2 S Mr Phili hud little In Ii so oy UH us ho left oCl tilt thu court loon loom with his hi tin lie spoke 1101 ti to several friend who crowded crolle l to I halle his bin hand hulid but hut mad mado no com COlli muni 01 sill I In hi IllS his hi JolI JudKo Adam r luw 1 the tho and ii nI tho lie I I iii S upon whIch It u ua d I cited II a of JC supreme court the Ills framing of The decision continued c llO ore are tho thu moro more rebuilt of ur the this ina court of or hue tho Unit Unitt fd oil t Slates on Oli thin loll They IJ I to 10 thin tilts while every vury r pie ra caution mUst ba ls taken to tu fairly and fully apprise ih III this ut of the thu Out cau cause a of ho hue Ow him no so as to 10 him IllIn him to 10 make liln defense und StIll lid plead the may be lie In iii lUh tIme the ease case for or hU Isis io lection charge for the tha same tl him lo to tho full tull In III his hiM constitutional oJ ri right ht to tl toa toIL a It fair und end Impartial trill trial I no Impracticable guile able or ur of oC technicality or M which tend Co 10 o defeat or embarrass its t be adopted Huch Stich In Is the he law II of at TOJIU an indictment 1 Ok OJ any offense the lie penal aw Of lit this thin hl state stale shall b be Ii huh charge chin thu lito iii loii II of oC tha ilia I Ii a in ordinary und auth concise lan hail III In such uch a 11 manner mannel ut UI to enable a t II j 1111 oC or common to Is In lii n the light Unlit of if tin th foregoing lag ng and reasonable rules It would that hat If It a It president of or n u corporation whose duty hut It II wile was an UM chief chile executive to I Know what whal a I Hind htiu tI of or ii C agreement it hi ills hIs company hud hll made 12 uld 1 to III toi t tit it II i law requiting him lo iii do In I it I make incIte an Ibid hit liln wa wu not on m a it duy hl n IL i t l 10 any 1111 agreement Mill lIh any lu tu Ms fix tin tilt price lirlee ir 11 Ii limit hill t I the lIt production hilt nf of mi a e of lila Ii II fac I 11 IC the t ha y i iI when wh I with false In it n that pa rt he hii h rould not un the Ih nature ot tit th the Ihl charge that It t wax wag nl only hull the tho of I an 1111 opinion e of It lt II Its meaning when taken tuk In ill connection with wills the law governing tIle the SAIl The rw indictment In the particulars Just discussed d in ill my trI ill opinion states les tilt of or nn an offense C within wit hili the IheI meaning of o the extradition IRs of ot Urn tho I t State Stat i It II is 15 i that IhM lie tho lu lit 11 wait fi not nul found within the 1111 car Ii the th Ill of lit Ih I hu i for It Is III by b the ilic sIc ta taue tUe Itle ue of rr limitations That hat Argument l Is Isa a t merll It 11 I t may turn I nut UI tit to 10 bp IH bet 1111 t rui lill that the Ih petitioner has lisa been absent r lull Mii the stAti stat of ot Texas during a part of If the Ih I ii I I ill IMP I If I C I HO so 1 0 thu hi I duration ii ion of or absence ab 1 not ni t be 11 I Included I 1101 tItled 1 III In hue tho Ih of M limitation fI I a of if t the tho argument alJ U II I of oC counsel fl for tOI both sides the thim I he conclusion IB is Irresistible III that tho thic sub of or an lull offence Is found In Iii the Ih in and Ind that t jurisdiction rests r l l lIlon lone Ilon with the lh courts 1 ot of fI th Ih ti demand demanding tug ing states stales to ho I any an Uon which may inns Inn arise e In ii Its consIderation and trial The prisoner trl oner inu t lit hl rr ie IP d und ind It 1 Is III so ordered |
