Show 1 W s t application DENIED ED I 1 liTti Ird district court Refi ties writ of habeas corpus to apostle the tito application of apostle lorenzo snow for a writ of habeas corpus was wals called for hearing in the third di DIs Is brict court ori saturday tho the deseret neus gives the following account of otte proceedings mr sheeks stated that the court wa was not compelled by tho statute to g grant rant the writ but as it was hie the desire of counsel for the petitioner to appeal to a higher court they wanted no technicality to stand in the way ofa of a review of the case and asked that the court issue the writ without passing on the question ioli they did not ask that the petitioner be re leased from imprisonment now bill that the lie question at issue segre segregation gm might go to the gifted states ettes supreme court the court eald said th that atwith with that un standing der the writ would be issued ii mr vanan varian interposed an objection however claiming bat that the third district court had no jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus cot pus the defendant bad had been convicted ina in a ordinate coordinate co court the fret first district and the third district court had no right to review the case an and id no jurisdiction uris diction to render a judgment lor this reason he lie 0 opposed tho granting of the writ he ie also argued that where here the petition did not show sufficient clent cause for the discharge of the prisoner that the writ should be denied mr richards Eich ards eaid said the position of MrY arlan kasnot well taken in reference to abe alleged insufficiency of the facts shown in the petition be he cited authorities that mr Ya variance rians clai claim in bad had only reference refe renco to the court of last resort and not to one from which an appeal could be taken counsel for petitioner bad had made thie request that all possible doubt as to the right of appeal might be removed it was far from consistent for the representative of the government to object to having the highest court in the lind pasa on tho the construction of the law jaw this representative had claimed that be he had the right to so regate the offense of unlawful cohabitation habitation fabi tation as often a as i he chose and men were imprisoned ris in consequence now he lie came forward and objected to the supreme court passing on the question if ho he was right none hould should be more willing than thin government of officer ficeri to have the question decided in his bayor if be was wrong those prosecuted under that method were being illegally imprisoned and it was only an act of jus use to them to have the matter act right for this purpose sei tho the writ should be granted the court should not try to oust the ap appellate jurisdiction asdic of the united states ta es dur supreme supreme court by refusing the application of the petitioner mr sheeks stated that the only object of the request waa was to get the question of segregation before the united states supreme court the court said the question was whether on the showing made the petitioner petitioner could be discharged on the dearine Ee dearine he arine As this could not be done under the ruling of the territorial supreme court lie he would not issue the wit writ mr richards aid the reason the case hd had been oen baroug brought ht before judge zane was that the statute required application to the most convenient court the petitioner did not ask a review ot the case in this court or the united states supreme court the only question was whether the court exceeded its jurisdiction jutis diction in poising additional jud judgements judge ments after the petitioner had bo been en sentenced once for the offense off easo judge zane however refused to I 1 issue assue the wi writ it and exception to the ruling was taken by counsel for the petitioner the case will be taken to the united states supreme court |