Show THE MAUGHN CASE at al the session of the territorial supreme court on saturday june 22 judge zane stated that the court would hear the arguments in the cue case of W H maughn for release on a writ of habeas corpus F S richards HARDS said it was with a degree of em barras that he be began this case not because the applicant was not entitled to release for lit he was but because the other side claimed that this case was fully covered by a recent decision of this court he felt however that the different circumstances V place the case in a and not in antagonism to the decision in the barton case mr richards then read the application for a writ corpus giving a history of the case and reciting that the applicant hi had already served a term for the same offense as aa that on which he was now be beningfield ingfield being held on a sentence of two and a half haff years mr richards stated that the question on which issue was raised was whether habeas corpus was a proper 0 p ar remedy for the wrong being gr done 0 to defendant if it was not then there was no legal remedy and the applicant was being kept in p prison rison without authority of law and at the same time the law gave him no protection or relief the defendant had satisfied two judgments for unlawful cohabitation one of which covered the time mentioned in the adultery charge in this latter fact there was a marked distinction from the barton case in that case the indictments did not show this nor did they in the nielsen case but they did in the maughn case therefore the question was brought into the record by the in and it was not necessary to be brought in by the plea of former conviction it might be urged that the rachel woodward named in both indictments was not shown to be the same person that she was the same person was presumed to be the case unless it was otherwise shown because all the circumstances set forth in the record showed her to be the only one of that name in support of this proposition of law mr richards read from a number of authorities judge judd it seems to me that the question that the plea of former conviction must be considered the defendant did not plead it now how can it be brought in mr richards it was not necessary in this case the court had no authority to pass that second judgment judge zaue baue then the court must inquire into the record in the other case mr richards yes because the other record was before the court when it passed judgment upon the defendant would the court be justified in passing judgment upon two indictments identical in all respects simply because there were two papers judge judd the defendant should plead it mr richards in the snow case it was not shown that the three co habitation habitat ioA were the same saine in each record all the records combined showed it the supreme court said it would consider air the records to determine this one question Is the defendant being imprisoned twice for the same offense ofie nse in that respect this case is identical the supreme court was more lib jib eral than to say it would only consider one record though the attorney for the government urged that it should not do anymore any more it decide i that all the records should be considered where there was a claim that the court hai no jurisdiction to pass Fien sentence tence a second time in this case there would probably be no question if there had been no plea of former conviction but it was not necessary from the fact that the record was before the court and its attention specially called to it the question 19 whether the court had power to render the judgment it did in the lang case the united states supreme court said it did not it matters not dot what the j jurisdiction jurisdiction uris diction was such a judgment was not voidable but void it was insisted here for reasons identically the same as in this case that the court had no DO jurisdiction the same assertion was made in the supreme court but it was said by that tribunal to be wrong if wrong there it is also wrong here judge judd why did counsel suffer this defendant to plead guilty cju the court could do da nothing but t pass judgment tiva indictments were not before the court mr richards the indictments were before the court judge judd then why did not counsel plead it mr richards I 1 was not the counsel so I 1 cannot say perhaps he thought there were two es we know there were not but because counsel was mistaken is this man to suffer you cannot find any authorization for a court to take jurisdiction to pass judgment in such a case as this can a court illegally imprison a man for years and yet there be no way to give him justice I 1 say no the constitutional right of this man is being invaded the supreme tribunal of this land has said a man cannot be punished twice for the same offense that is why it heard the snow case the record in a single case there did not show that he was being imprisoned three times for the same offense but the court coneliA concluded ded it should go into all the records to ascertain the fact of the imprisonment and it did though the government made the same claim there that it does doe here shere the supreme court said that habeas corpus was available when it appeared on the judgment that the court had passed it when it had no power to do so in this case it not only appeared on the judgment but in the whole record in this matter precisely the same as in the snow case when there is an effort to convict a man twice the court exhausts its jurisdiction with one conviction judge judge judd in the krepps case theau the judgment ament was attacked when it was sought to enforce it mr richards what is the difference enca between seeking to enforce a judgment against a person or against his property judge judd you know the facts in the krepps case mr richards yes sir and the case is identical with this the judgment was illegal and was resisted here the judgment is illegal and we are resisting it so it was in the snow case the district attorney said the court had no jurisdiction to hear it precisely as he says here the supreme court said the district attorney was wrong i being in the same wel position tion is he not wrong now he cannot be otherwise the supreme court decided the snow case on principle the same principle as that involved here the records there were just as they are here but the supreme court was moren more liberal beral than the position urged here it never referred to theolea the plea of former conviction but only determined the fact odthe of the illegal imprisonment it appears in this indictment that it was a second conviction making it still more plain the supreme court expressly states that this question is a matter that can be considered on habeas corpus and makes no reference to a plea but only to what ap pears on the record as in this case the the commitment was of a constitutional right and habeas corpus was therefore a means of relief here the court had the record we now show it from the record we bring no other evidence to prove it the record does that and no authority in law can be found to enforce this illegal judgment this is a proceeding in aid of the liberty of the individual the privilege of habeas corpus is one of the most sacred rights of the citizen we have no other remedy in this case the prisoner is being held wrongfully there is no question of that the c urt lurt had the record before it and it was bound to know the law it should therefore never have passed judgment MR MB RILES HILES contended that this and the barton case were identical except that the equities in favor of barton were more persuasive than in this case I 1 presume that this court knows some law counsel has repeated with tiresome monotony that the record shows that the court had no jurisdiction I 1 say that the record shows it had jurisdiction he presents one record to impeach another he says there would lre he no question if the defendant had pleaded a former conviction I 1 say there would still be a question and that is the proof of the plea even if he had pleaded former conviction and it was not on the record it would not avail him by ousting the court of jurisdiction the court cannot consider the record in the unlawful cohabitation case but even if it could it does not contradict the record in the adultery case I 1 would offer to prove to a jury that lie he pleaded guilty to the adultery charge first judge judd there are three cases and noth nothing I 1 ng to show that they are related to each other mr hiles that is just what we claim and submit the record MR MB RICHARDS said the distinctions from the barton case were that judgment was suspended in that case and still more important the indictment shows that the adultery was covered by the unlawful cohabitation that record was before the court in the maughn case but not in the barton case the united states supreme court says that on habeas habeb corpus the two or three alree records can be considered this court should therefore consider the two the court does not lose jurisdiction simply because somebody points out the fact tho the loss of jurisdiction rests on the law no plea of former conviction was entered in this case but in the face of two former convictions the court passed judgment when it had no DO right to having at the same time the record before it it is a fact that the unlawful cohabitation pleas were prior to the arraignment for adultery as the record shows the case was taken under advisement and court adjourned until 4 p pm M |