The petitioner prayed for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground
that the state statute under which he was arrested and held in
custody was repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.
Held that without deciding whether the Court has power
under existing legislation and on habeas corpus to discharge a
prisoner held in custody under process of a state court of original
jurisdiction for trial on an indictment charging him with an
offense against the laws of that state, such power ought not, for
reasons given in
Ex Parte Royall, ante, 117 U. S. 241, to
be exercised in advance of his trial.
This was an original petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The
proceedings were founded upon some of the legislation of the
Virginia respecting the receipt of coupons by the state in payment
of taxes which is considered in
Antoni v. Greenhow,
107 U. S. 769;
The Virginia Coupon Cases, 114 U.
S. 269;
Barry v. Edmunds, 116 U.
S. 550;
Royall v. Virginia, 116 U.
S. 572;
Sands v. Edmunds, 116 U.
S. 585, and
Ex Parte Royall, ante, 117 U. S. 241. The
case is stated in the opinion of the Court.
Page 117 U. S. 255
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an original application by W. L. Royall to this Court
for a writ of habeas corpus, directed to N. M. Lee, Sergeant of the
City of Richmond, Virginia, commanding him to produce the body of
the petitioner before this Court, together with the cause of his
detention, that he may be discharged from the custody of said
officer. The writ is asked upon the ground that the statute under
which he was arrested and is held in custody is repugnant to the
Constitution of the United States, and consequently that he is
restrained of his liberty in violation of that instrument. The
petition was filed here on the 1st day of December, 1884. It states
the same facts as are set out in the petition in
Ex Parte
Royall No. 1 and
Ex Parte Royall No. 2, ante,
117 U. S. 241,
just determined.
The application for the writ must be denied. It is sufficient to
say that if this Court has power, under existing legislation, and
upon habeas corpus, to discharge the petitioner, who is in custody
under the process of a state court of original jurisdiction, for
trial on an indictment charging him with an
fense against the laws of that state, upon which it is not
necessary to express an opinion, such power ought not, for the
reasons given in the other cases just decided, to be exercised in
advance of his trial.
Denied.
Comments
Be the first to comment
Leave a Comment