tion of the questions involved, notwithstanding the [228] e. Findings on Questions of Fact.52 Except in some jurisdictions,53 and except on certiorari, findings of fact in a habeas corpus proceeding may be reviewed;55 but the review is generally 54 confined within narrow limits. In some jurisdictions the findings of fact, if supported by any evidence, are deemed to be as binding and conclusive as the verdict of a jury in an action at law and will not be disturbed.56 In other jurisdictions, the finding or judgment of the lower court on the facts is not conclusive on the appellate court,57 or as conclusive as the verdict of a jury,58 but is deemed to be more or less advisory,59 and all questions of fact arising upon the record, including the evidence, are open to consideration.60 And in some jurisdictions, where the evidence is before the appellate court, it will be examined and weighed by that court,61 but in other jurisdictions it will not be weighed.62 Of course, where the evidence is not before the appellate court, the findings of fact must be accepted as supported by the evidence.63 The findings of the trial court will not be disturbed when supported by the evidence," or when, under the test applied by the appellate court, it is not so erroneous or contrary to the evidence as to justify that court in setting it aside." It is variously stated that the finding or judgment of the lower court on the facts will 64 65 45. Peo. v. Hyland, 187 App. Div. | 520; Brogdon v. Brogdon, 135 Ga. 680, | Clearman, 125 Iowa 461, 101 NW 193; 374, 175 NYS 626; Peo. v. Hayes, 163 App. Div. 725, 149 NYS 250 [aff 82 Misc. 165, 143 NYS 325 and app dism 212 N. Y. 603 mem, 106 NE 1041 mem]. Dunkin v. Seifert, 123 Iowa 64, 98 NW 558; McDonald v. Stitt, 118 Iowa 199, 91 NW 1031; Fouts v. Pierce, 64 Iowa 71, 19 NW 854; Bonnett v. Bonnett, 61 Iowa 199, 16 NW 91, 47 AmR 810: Kline v. Kline, 57 Iowa 386, 10 NW 825, 42 AmR 47; Jennings v. Jennings, 56 Iowa 288, 9 NW 222; Drumb v. Keen, 47 Iowa 435; Stokes v. Cogdell, 153 N. C. 181, 69 SE 65. 70 SE 335; Smith v. Towns, 134 Ga. 414, 67 SE 829; Toms v. Neely, 134 Ga. 274, 67 SE 803; Vandiver v. Augusta Associated Charities, 130 Ga. 413, 60 SE 999; Richards v. McHan, [a] Thus (1) in one instance 129 Ga. 275, 58 SE 839; Pinnebad v. the court considered the case on the Pinnebad, 128 Ga. 73, 57 SE 89; Holmerits on the ground that the ques-lenbeck v. Glover, 128 Ga. 52, 57 SE tion involved was important and 108; Willingham v. Mattox, 125 Ga. might arise suddenly in the future 106, 53 SE 607; Weathersby v. Jorwithout time for a review by an ap- dan, 124 Ga. 68, 52 SE 83; Kirkland 57. Johnson v. Sayre, 158 U. S. pellate court. Peo. v. Hyland, 187 v. Canty, 122 Ga. 261, 50 SE 90; Sum- 109, 15 SCt 773, 39 L. ed. 914; Wong App. Div. 374, 175 NYS 626. (2) ner v. Sumner, 118 Ga. 590, 45 SE 509; Heung v. Elliott, 179 Fed. 110, 102 Where the validity of a pardon is Chunn v. Graham, 117 Ga. 551, 43 CCA 408; Ex p. Moore, 5 Tex. A. 103. involved, the court will make a final SE 987; Franklin v. Carswell, 103 [a] Questions relating to bail.disposition of the question as, if the Ga. 553, 29 SE 476: Tuggle v. Tuggle, (1) In Texas a finding of the lower relator was in fact pardoned, he is 97 Ga. 658, 25 SE 489; Smith V. court on the evidence that the relafairly entitled to the benefits of that Bragg, 68 Ga. 650; Bentley v. Terry, tor is entitled to bail is binding on act of grace in his way back to his 59 Ga. 555, 27 AmR 399; Payne v. the appellate court. Ex p. Latham, place in society. Peo. v. Hayes, 163 Payne, 39 Ga. 174; Boyd v. Glass, 34 73 Tex. Cr. 144, 164 SW 377. (2) App. Div. 725, 149 NYS 250 [app Ga. 253, 89 AmD 252; Starr v. Bar-But the question, whether, under the dism 212 N. Y. 603 mem, 106 NE ton, 34 Ga. 99; Lindsey v. Lindsey, evidence, the amount of the bail fixed 1041 mem]. 14 Ga. 657; Walden v. Morris, 16 Ga.is reasonable or excessive may be A. 408, 85 SE 452; Manning v. Craw- passed on and determined by the ford, 8 Ga. A. 835, 70 SE 959; Evans reviewing court. Ex p. Latham, suv. Lane, 8 Ga. A. 826, 70 SE 603; pra. (3) And on appeal from an Walker v. Jones, 1 Ga. A. 70, 57 SE order refusing bail the court sometimes reverses on the facts. Ex P. Wade, 87 Tex. Cr. 500, 222 SW 979. 58. Garfinkle v. Sullivan, 37 Wash. 650, 80 P 188. 46. Scope of review of discretion of lower court generally see Appeal and Error §§ 2753-2829. 47. U. S.-U. S. v. Ronan, 33 Fed. Conn.-Farrell v. Hawley, 78 Conn. 150, 61 A 502, 112 AmSR 98, 70 LRA 686. 3 AnnCas 874. 117. Ga.-Bell v. Askins, 150 Ga. 635, 104 SE 421; Dawson v. Smith, 150 Ga. 352, 103 SE 847; Wilkinson v. Lee, 138 Ga. 360, 75 SE 477, 42 LR ANS 1013; Walden v. Morris, 16 Ga. A. 408, 85 SE 452. Iowa.-Myers V. Clearman, Iowa 461, 101 NW 193. 125 Md.-State v. Boyle, 25 Md. 509. N. Y.-Peo. v. New York Nursery, etc., Hospital, 230 N. Y. 119, 129 NE 341. Tex.-Yarbrough v. State, 2 Tex. 519. W. Va.-Moore v. Hughes, 87 W. Va. 722, 106 SE 35. [a] The record will be examined to ascertain whether the judgment constitutes an abuse of discretion. Tytler v. Tytler, 15 Wyo. 319, 89 P 1, 123 AmSR 1067. 48. U. S.-U. S. v. Ronen, 33 Fed. 117. D. C.-Beall v. Bibb, 19 App. 311; Stickel v. Stickel, 18 App. 149. Fla.-Reynolds V. Alderman, 72 Fla. 39, 72 S 369; Robertson v. Bass, 52 Fla. 420, 42 S 243. Ga.-Brooks v. Isabel, 150 Ga. 727. 105 SE 483: McCoy v. Brookins, 150 Ga. 636, 104 SE 572; Fletcher v. Bragdon, 150 Ga. 575, 104 SE 223; Holland v. Cobb, 150 Ga. 344, 103 SE 848; Turner v. Turner, 150 Ga. 191, 103 SE 413; Raines v. Harris, 150 Ga. 103, 102 SE 827; Williams v. Hicks, 149 Ga. 333, 100 SE 97; Ogletree v. Ellington, 142 Ga. 636, 83 SE 903. La.-State v. Johnson, 149 La. 89, Miss.-Hibbette v. Baines, 78 Miss. 278, 142 P 918. Y.-Peo. V. Sternberger, 153 N. Y. 684. 47 NE 918; Peo, V. Allen, 1 Silv. A. 381, 11 NE 143; In re Welch. 74 N. Y. 299; Peo. v. Cooper, 75 App. Div. 620, 78 NYS 161. Tex.-Foster V. Foster. 230 Sw 1064; Bemus v. Bemus, 63 Tex. Civ. A. 148. 133 SW 503. Wash.-Carey v. Hertel, 37 Wash. 49. See supra § 106. 321. Macready v. Wilcox, 33 Conn. 51. Walker v. Jones, 1 Ga. A. 70, 57 SE 903. 52. Review of questions of fact, verdict, and findings generally see Appeal and Error §§ 2830-2877. 53. Ex p. Canova, 84 S. C. 473, 65 SE 625, 67 SE 476; Ex p. Reed, 19 S. C. 604. 54. In re Gould, 174 Mich. 663. 140 NW 1013; Smith V. Kiel, 150 Mich. 417, 114 NW 229; Com. v. McArthur, 62 Pa. Super. 535. 55. Atkinson v. Downing, 175 N. 56. Starr v. Barton, 34 Ga. 99; 59. 650, 80 P 188. 60. Johnson v. Sayre, 158 U. S. 109, 15 SCt 773, 39 L. ed. 914; Wong Heung v. Elliott, 179 Fed. 110, 102 CCA 408. 61. Jones v. Darnall, 103 Ind. 569, 2 NE 229, 53 AmR 545; Ex p. Richards, 102 Ind. 260. 1 NE 639; Ex p. Kendall, 100 Ind. 599; Ex p. Walton, 79 Ind. 600; Ex p. Sutherlin, 56 Ind. 595: Ex p. Jones, 55 Ind. 176; Ex p. Moore, 30 Ind. 197; Ex p. Heffren, 27 Ind. 87; Garfinkle v. Sullivan, 37 Wash. 650, 80 P 188. 62. Tytler v. Tytler, 15 Wyo. 319, 89 P 1, 123 AmSR 1067. 63. Breene v. Peo., 51 Colo. 342, 117 P 1000; State v. Bryant, 99 Minn. 49, 108 NW 880. 64. Ga.-Robertson v. Heath, 132 Ga. 310, 64 SE 73; Gay v. Thompson, 131 Ga. 694, 63 SE 133. Iowa. Winter v. Winter, 184 Iowa 185, 166 NW 274. Miss.-Ex p. Newsom, 58 S 539. N. C.-Ex p. Warren, 178 N. C. 43, 100 SE 76. Tex.-Pittman v. Byars, 45 Tex. Civ. A. 46, 99 SW 1032; Ex p. Sapp, 77 Tex. Cr. 400, 179 SW 109; Ex p. King, 56 Tex. Cr. 68, 118 SW 1032. 65. Wong Heung v. Elliott, 179 Fed. 110, 102 CCA 408; Phelps v. McLeod, 17 Ala. A. 480, 86 S 150; Moore v. Hughes, 87 W. Va. 722, 106 SE 35. not be disturbed unless clearly wrong," 66 or clearly 74 [229] f. Presumptions. In accordance with general rules relating to presumptions in an appellate court,a court reviewing an order or judgment in a habeas corpus proceeding will not presume error,78 but, in the absence of a contrary showing, 66. Larson v. Dutton, 43 N. D. 21, 172 NW 869. 67. Jenkins v. Clark, 71 Iowa 552, 32 NW 504. See Harrison v. Harker, 44 Utah 541, 142 P 716 (it must appear with at least reasonable clearness that the findings of fact are against the weight of evidence). 68. Shaw v. Nachtwey, 43 Iowa 653. 69. State v. Lacey, 158 Ala. 16, 48 S 343; State v. Margo, (Ala. A.) 89 S 860; State v. Barfoot, (Ala. A.) 88 S 64: State v. Cauthen, (Ala. A.) 88 S 63; State v. Gambrell, 16 Ala. A. 618, 80 S 622; State v. Chancey, 14 Ala. A. 119, 72 S 213; Kendall v. Williams, (Tex. Civ. A.) 233 SW 296. 70. McKercher v. Greene, 13 Colo. A. 270, 58 P 406. See Peo. v. Bolton, 27 Colo. A. 39. 146 P 489 (where the evidence was very evenly balanced and the reviewing court refused to disturb the findings). 71. Ala.-State v. Lacey, 158 Ala. 16, 48 S 343; State v. Margo, (A.) 89 S 860; Ex p. Olive, 17 Ala. A. 329, 85 S 37; Butler v. State, 1 Ala. A. 265. 56 S 20. Ga. V. Ga.-Chunn V. Graham, 117 551, 43 SE 987; Ring v. Weinman, 116 Ga. 798, 43 SE 47; Marlow Marlow, 105 Ga. 178, 31 SE 146. Ida. Walker v. Edwards, 32 Ida. 257, 181 P 932; Jain v. Priest, 30 Ida. 273, 164 P 364. Iowa. Kuhn v. Breen, 101 Iowa 665, 70 NW 722. W. Va.-Moore v. Hughes, 87 W. Va. 722, 106 SE 35. See Ex p. Moore, 5 Tex. A. 103 (in case of conflicting testimony great deference is to be accorded to the opinion of the lower court). 72. Mahan v. Hendricks, (Ind.) 99 NE 418. 73. Smiley v. McIntosh, 129 Iowa 337, 105 NW 577. 74. Shaw v. Nachtwey, 43 Iowa 653. Davis v. Smith, 7 Ga. A. 192, 80 will presume that the order or judgment is cor- [230] g. Harmless Error. The appellate court will disregard, and not reverse on account of, technical or harmless errors not affecting the final result and not resulting in prejudice to the party complaining.89 Counter errors, that is, errors adverse to the successful party and from the commission of which he cannot appeal, may be considered where they will render harmless errors adverse to the defeated party and thereby prevent a reversal.90 76. In re Depue, 185 N. Y. 60, 77 77. See Appeal and Error §§ 2662- [a] Presumptions not authorized 79. Pruitt v. State, 130 Ala. 147. NE 352 [rev 176 App. Div. 141, 161 80. Campbell v. Storer, 101 Tex. 81. Mayo v. U. S., 256 Fed. 839, 168 CCA 185; Poor v. Cudihee, 37 Wash. 609, 79 P 1105. 82. Rowe v. Boyle, 268 Fed. 809; Greenhaw v. Williams, 140 Ark. 471, 215 SW 734; Breene v. Peo., 51 Colo. 342, 117 P 1000. 83. Greenhaw V. Williams, 140 Ark. 471, 215 SW 734; Ex p. Welburn, 70 Tex. Cr. 464, 157 SW 154; Ex p. Basham, 65 Tex. Cr. 533, 145 SW 619. 84. Peo. v. Hessing, 28 Ill. 410; Ex p. Northern, 63 Tex. Cr. 275, 140 SW 95; Ex p. Naill, 59 Tex. Cr. 140, 127 SW 1031. [a] Overruling motion.-Where it Simmons v. Georgia Iron, etc., 86. Ex p. Jacobs, 38 Cal. A. 474, 88. State v. Burnette, 173 N. C. 734, 91 SE 364; Craig v. Hamann, 31 Oh. Cir. Ct. 108; Ex p. Stacey, 45 Or. 85, 75 P 1060; Ex p. Howe, 26 Or. 181, 37 P 536. [a] Waiver of examination.Where the record on appeal from an order refusing to discharge relator fails to show that the justice of the peace upon whose mittimus he was held in custody made an examination of the charge against him, the supreme court will presume that the examination was waived by relator. Ex p. Jefferson, 62 Miss. 223. [b] Conviction under ordinance visions. Where the transcript merely containing valid and invalid prostates that defendant was convicted of violating a certain creating several offenses, and some ordinance, of its provisions are invalid, it will be presumed that he was convicted of violating a provision whose validity is unquestioned. Ex p. Bizzell, 112 Ala. 210, 21 S 371. 89. Nebr.-Dennison v. Christian, 72 Nebr. 703, 101 NW 1045, 117 AmSR 817 [aff 196 U. S. 637, 25 SCt 795, 49 L. ed. 630]. N. Y.-Matter of Larner, 79 App. Div. 134, 79 NYS 1039. Tex.-Burchard v. Woodward, (Civ. A.) 223 SW 707; Long v. Smith, (Civ. A.) 162 SW 25; Ex p. Sams. (Civ. A. 161 SW 388; Ex p. Qualls, (Cr.) 497, 46 SW 639; Ex p. Pate, 21 Tex. 61 SW 392; Ex p. White, 39 Tex. Cr. A. 190, 17 SW 460. Vt.-In re Bryon, 83 Vt. 108, 74 A 488. Wash.-St. Clair v. Williams, 23 Va. 269, 76 SE 438. 90. 156 NW 513. 75. Ford, v. Dilley, 174 Iowa 243. 195, 66 SE 401. "Where the petition fully sets forth 91. Determination and disposition the state of facts actually relied on of cause generally see Appeal and by the parties, and the subsequent Error $3093-3114; Criminal Law trial develops a similar state of facts, 87. Ex p. Kramer, 19 Tex. A. 123. §§ 3735-3770. and it appears that the causes are [a] Place of confinement.-Where 92. Reg. v. Murdock, 27 Ont. A. not sufficient to discharge the pris- the agreed statement of facts on ap- 443. oner, the reviewing court will re- peal from discharge on habeas cor93. In re Langley, 37 Wis. 377; the judgment and order the pus does not show where the health Reg. v. Murdock, 27 Ont. A. 443. writ quashed.' Davis v. Smith, su- officer had confined petitioner, who Reg. v. Murdock, 27 Ont. A. was affected with a contagious dis- | 443. verse pra, 94. 97 render such judgment as the lower court should have Discussion of facts where bail denied. On affirming or reversing a judgment refusing bail in a criminal case, the appellate court will refrain from commenting on or discussing the evidence lest the rights of the applicant on his final trial be prejudiced.* As sometimes stated, the rule is that the appellate court will not ordinarily discuss either the law or the facts, but will simply announce its conclusion without further comment or remark." Mandate. Under the statutes of some states the mandate of the reviewing court in a habeas corpus proceeding is not transmitted to the lower court for 95. Davis v. Smith, 7 Ga. A. 192, | 66 SE 401; Ex p. Davis, 88 Tex. Cr. 135, 225 SW 176; Ex p. Firmin, 60 Tex. Cr. 368, 131 SW 1113. [a] D'sposition of person. (1) Sometimes, on reversal, the appellate court remands the relator to custody (State v. Shrader, 73 Nebr. 618, 103 NW 276, 119 AmSR 913), (2) or renders judgment that he be discharged from custody (Ex p. Mylius, 61 W. Va. 405, 56 SE 602, 10 LRANS 1098, 11 AnnCas 812). See also supra § 195. 96. Frick v. Lee Tung Jung, 205 Fed. 38, 123 CCA 311: Weathersby v. Jordan, 124 Ga. 68, 52 SE 83; Com. v. Cohen, 63 Pa. Super. 581. 97. Cardenas V. Barrera, (Tex. Civ. A.) 216 SW 474. 98. Ex p. Firmin, 60 Tex. Cr. 222, 131 SW 1116. 99. Ex p. Firmin, 60 Tex. Cr. 222, 131 SW 1116. 1. Ala.-Ex p. Mancill, 15 Ala. A. 421, 73 S 756. Fla.-Danson V. Danson. 76 Fla. 449, 80 S 62; Ferlita v. Jones, 50 Fla. 218, 39 S 593. Ga.-Rourke v. O'Neill, 150 282, 103 SE 428. Ind.-McKenzie v. State, 80 Ind. 547. enforcement but is certified to and operates directly upon the officer or other person by whom the relator is detained." In other jurisdictions, while no procedendo issues, the proceedings are remanded to the lower court in order that the petitioner may renew his application, and on motion the appellate court may direct that its decision and opinion be certified to the lower court in advance of the statutory time." In a proper case the mandate of the reviewing court may be stayed." Authority to proceed in a criminal case is not necessarily dependent on a proper delivery of the mandate issued upon affirmance of a judgment denying the accused a writ of habeas corpus or upon dismissal of the appeal. 12 Conclusiveness. A disposition of the cause by the appellate court is binding and conclusive so as to prevent a second appeal to the same court on the same state of facts.13 Where although separate notices of appeal were filed in the lower court, and separate præcipes in the appellate court, by two persons, yet where the appeals are otherwise treated as one and the lower court had jurisdiction of both persons, a single judgment of affirmance is effectual and binding as to both.1 16 15 14 [§ 232] T. Certiorari and Habeas Corpus as Ancillary Writs." The writ of habeas corpus is effectual only to bring up the body of the prisoner with the cause of his detention. Where, therefore, the return to the writ shows that the prisoner is held by virtue of proceedings in a court or before a magistrate over which the court issuing the habeas corpus has a supervisory authority, the latter court will issue a writ of certiorari in aid of the writ of habeas corpus to bring up the record in order that it may fully determine the legality of the imprisonment.1 So, on the other hand, the court in which a writ of certiorari is pending may issue a writ of Tex. Cr. 41, 224 SW 891; Ex p. Smith,] to. Peo. v. Tompkins, 1 Park. Cr. 85 Tex. Cr. 649, 215 SW 299; Ex p. (N. Y.) 224. Webster, 80 Tex. Cr. 644, 192 SW 1063; Ex p. Parker, 80 Tex. Cr. 114, 188 SW 983; Ex p. Sapp, 77 Tex. Cr. 400, 179 SW 109; Ex p. Lawrence, (Tex. Cr.) 137 SW 697; Ex p. Sperger, 62 Tex. Cr. 133, 137 SW 351; Ex p. Beaupre, (Tex. Cr.) 135 SW 547; Ex p. McFarlane, (Tex. Cr.) 129 SW 610; Ex p. Rucker, 6 Tex. A. 81; Ex p. McKinney, 5 Tex. A. 500; Ex p. Day, 3 Tex. A. 328; Ex p. Cook, 2 Tex. A. 388; Sharp v. State, 1 Tex. A. 299. 5. State v. Hartzell, 13 N. D. 356, 100 NW 745; Ex p. Rothschild, 2 Tex. A. 560. 6. Ex p. Moore, 5 Tex. A. 103. 8. State v. Herndon, 107 N. C. 934, 9. State v. Herndon, 107 N. C. 934, 12 SE 268. 10. State v. Herndon, 107 N. C. 934, 12 SE 268. 11. Rose v. Roberts, 99 Fed. 952, 40 CCA 203 (a mandate of affirmance Ga. of the decision of a circuit court denying a writ of habeas corpus will be stayed pending decision by the supreme court on error, where, if the mandate should issue, relator would be delivered to the custody of officers in another state). Tex. Ex p. Iles, 72 Tex. Cr. 530, 162 SW 1150; Ex p. Naill, 59 Tex. Cr. 140. 127 SW 1031; Ex p. Clay, (Cr.) 51 SW 241. 2. Peo. v. Reardon, 186 N. Y. 164, 78 NE 860 [rev 112 App. Div. 866, 98 NYS 399]. 3. Peo. v. Reardon, 186 N. Y. 164, 78 NE 860 [rev 112 App. Div. 866, 98 NYS 399]. 12. Lambert v. Barrett, 159 U. S. 13. In re Hall, 8 Ont. A. 135. 16. U. S.-Hyde v. Shine, 199 U. S. 62, 25 SCt 760, 50 L. ed. 90; Ornelas v. Ruiz, 161 U. S. 502, 16 SCt 689, 40 L. ed. 787; Ex p. Platt, 253 Fed. 413; Ex p. Bennett, 3 F. Cas. No. 1.311. 2 Cranch C. C. 612; In re Martin, 16 F. Cas. No. 9,151, 5 Blatchf. In re Stupp, 23 F. Cas. No. 13,563, 12 Blatchf. 501. 303: Ark.-State v. Neel, 48 Ark. 283, 3 SW 631. Md. In re Glenn, 54 Md. 572. Minn. In re Snell, 31 Minn. 110, 16 NW 692. Pa.-Gosline v. Place, 32 Pa. 520; Com. v. Veley, 63 Pa. Super. 489: Com. v. Gibbons, 9 Pa. Super. 527 [aff 200 Pa. 430, 50 A 248, 86 AmSR 715]; Com. v. Allen, 19 Pa. Dist. 465. Wis. State v. Whitcher, 117 Wis. 668, 94 NW 787, 98 AmSR 968. Wyo.-Hovey v. Sheffner, 16 Wyo. 254, 93 P 305, 125 AmSR 1037, 15 LRANS 227, 15 AnnCas 318. Eng.-Rex v. Taylor, 7 D. & R. 622, 16 ECL 306; Rex v. Marks, 3 East 157, 102 Reprint 557; Bushell's Case, 1 Mod. 119, 86 Reprint 777; Fazacharly v. Baldo, 1 Salk. 352, 91 Reprint 308. Can. In re Trepanier, 12 Can. S. C. 111; Rex v. Morency, 30 CanCrCas 395; Rex v. Keeping, 21 CanLTOcc Notes 508. Ont.-Reg. v. St. Clair, 27 Ont. A. 308, 3 CanCrCas 551; Rex v. Whitesides, 8 Ont. L. 622. Que.-Coté V. Durand, 25 Que. Super. 33; Ex p. Narbonne, 25 LCJur 330; Ladrie v. Malepart, 22 Que. Pr. 106. 4. Ex p. Mancill, 15 Ala. A. 421, [a] Affidavit of merits not re73 S 756; Ford v. Dilley, 174 Iowa 15. [a] Forms of writs of habeas quired.-Notwithstanding the Tem243, 156 NW 513; Ex p. Garvin, (Okl. corpus and certiorari, of the allow-perance Act § 59, providing for an Cr.) 192 P 363; Ex p. Argenta, 88ance thereof, and of the return there-affidavit of merits on certiorari, the habeas corpus to bring up the defendant, to the end that its jurisdiction may be effectively exercised.17 Where habeas corpus does not lie, an application for an ancillary writ of certiorari will be denied.18 Where by certiorari, an attack is made upon the proceedings which are not assailed by habeas corpus, the proceeding is not ancillary.19 VII. As method of review. Certiorari in aid of the writ of habeas corpus cannot be used as a method of reviewing a judgment of a trial court and as a substitute for a writ of error or an appeal.20 Only the question of jurisdiction will be investigated and determined. 21 SUSPENSION OF WRIT [§ 233] A. In General. The constitution of the United States provides that "the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.""22 There is a like provision in the constitutions of some of the states, 23 in the act of congress for the government of the Philippines, and in the constitution of the late Confederate States.25 In some state constitutions there are even broader provisions, prohibiting absolutely, without exception or qualification, the suspension of the writ.26 In no case can the power be exercised, under either the federal constitution or the constitution of a state, unless the conditions specified therein exist. 27 The provision in the Unitcourt, on a habeas corpus application with certiorari in aid, is entitled in the absence of the affidavit to look at the proceedings for the purpose of d termining the question of jurisdiction. In re Kennedy, 12 Sask. L. 512, 32 CanCrCas 31, [1919] 3 West Wkly 777. [b] Application by respondent.Where a person seeking relief has declined to apply for certiorari in aid of the writ, the prosecuting authorities may obtain certiorari to bring up the papers. Rex v. Nelson, 18 Ont. L. 484, 12 OntWR 1063. [c] Certiorari without habeas cor pus is not effectual to obtain the release of a prisoner. Rex v. Weir, 8 Que. Pr. 405. [d] Issuance of an ancillary writ of certiorari is wholly discretionary, and a refusal to issue it cannot be assigned as error. Hyde v. Shine, 199 U. S. 62, 25 SCt 760, 50 L. ed. 90. [e] Return should be signed by person to whom writ was directed. Seavey v. Seymour, 21 F. Cas. No. 12,596, 3 Cliff. 439. [f] In New York (1) the remedy of certiorari is incorporated in the code with the habeas corpus provision for the purpose of reaching those cases where the production of the body is unnecessary to the decision of the question to be presented. Peo. v. Van de Carr, 86 App. Div. 9, 83 NYS 245. (2) Except for the actual production of the body of the prisoner, the proceedings upon either writ are precisely the same. Peo. v. Flynn, 37 Misc. 87, 74 NYS 731 [aff 72 App. Div. 67, 76 NYS 293]; Peo. v. Hagen, 34 Misc. 24, 69 NYS 451. But see Peo. v. Tompkins, 2 Edm. Sel. Cas. 191 (where ancillary writ_of certiorari was held proper). (3) But a practice exists of issuing both writs in cases of detention before conviction for the purpose of examining the evidence to see if there is evidence of guilt. Peo. v. Van de Carr, 86 App. Div. 9, 83 NYS 245. (4) It is improper to combine in one instrument the writ of certiorari in aid of writ of habeas corpus, with the writ of habeas corpus. Peo. v. Crane, 94 Apr. Div. 397, 88 NYS 343. 17. Gosline v. Place, 32 Pa. 520, 524. "Certiorari and habeas corpus may be severally used as ancillary to each other. If a habeas corpus at common law issues, and the return to it shows that the prisoner is held by virtue of proceedings in a court, or before a magistrate, over which the court is uing the habeas corpus has a supervisory authority, the said court may issue a certiorari to bring up the record; and may thereupon hear and decide the case, or review [234] B. What Constitutes Suspension. The suspension of the writ which is prohibited means an absolute denial of the right to demand an investigation into the cause of detention.32 It has no reference to reasonable delay that may be occasioned and correct the proceedings, in order | 525 (construing same provision in to give efficacy to the writ of habeas Confederate States constitution). corpus. If a certiorari be issued to [c] Meaning of "the privilege of bring up a case into a higher court a writ."-In re Fagan, 8 F. Cas. No. for hearing or review, the court may 4,604, 2 Sprague 91. also issue a habeas corpus to bring up the defendant; and may, in a proper case, admit him to bail to appear at the hearing and abide the event; and the form of the recognizance must be adapted to the exigencies of the case." Gosline v. Place, supra [quot Com. v. Veley, 63 Pa. Super. 489, 493]. 18. Com. v. Green, 185 Pa. 641, 40 [a] "An essential prerequisite to 23. See constitutional provisions; and Wright v. Johnson, 5 Ark. 687; Wright v. State, 5 Ind. 290, 61 AmD 90; Peo. v. Hyatt, 172 N. Y. 176, 64 NE 825, 92 AmSR 706, 60 LRA 774 [aff 188 U. S. 691, 23 SCt 456, 47 L. ed. 657]; Peo. v. Liscomb, 60 N. Y. 559, 19 AmR 211; Ex p. Collier, 6 Oh. St. 55. 24. 32 U. S. St. at L. 691 c 1369; Fisher v. Baker, 203 U. S. 174, 27 SCt 135, 51 L. ed. 142, 7 Ann Cas 1018. 25. Confederate States Const. art the granting of any such special writ§ 9: In re Spivey, 60 N. C. 540; In re Rafter, 60 N. C. 537; In re Long, of certiorari is a meritorious and 60 N. C. 534; In re Cain, 60 N. C. 525; well-grounded petition for a habeas corpus. In re Russell, 60 N. C. 388; In re If that is wanting. the Roseman, 60 N. C. 368; State V. certiorari should be refused, and the petition therefor dismissed." Com. v. Sparks, 27 Tex. 705. Green, 185 Pa. 641, 647, 40 A 96. 19. State v. Kennie, 24 Mont. 45, 60 P 589. 20. Regina v. Powell, 21 U. C. Q. B. 26. See constitutional provisions; and: Mo.-Ex p. Webers, 275 Mo. 677, 205 SW 620; State v. Theisen, (A.) 142, SW 1088. N. C.-Ex p. Moore, 64 N. C. 802. Okl.-Byers v. Sun Sav. Bank, 41 Okl. 728, 139 P 948, 52 LRANS 320, AnnCas1916D 222; Ex p. Sullivan, 10 Okl. Cr. 465, 138 P 815, AnnCas1916A 719. 27. In re Keeler, 14 F. Cas. No. 7,636, Hempst. 306; Cannon v. Stuart, 8 Del. 223. 28. Ex p. Caldwell, 138 Fed. 487 [rev on other grounds 200 U. S. 293, 26 SCt 264, 50 L. ed. 488]; In re Barry, 42 Fed. 113, 136 U. S. 597, 34 L. ed. 503 note. 29. Ex p. Caldwell, 138 Fed. 487 [rev on other grounds 200 U. S. 293, 26 SCt 264, 50 L. ed. 488]; In re Barry, 42 Fed. 113, 136 U. S. 597, 34 L. ed. 503 note. 30. In re Barry, 42 Fed. 113, 136 U. S. 597, 34 L. ed. 503 note. [a] Extent of negation.-"This negation of power follows the enumeration of the powers of Congress; but it is general in its terms; it is in the section of things denied, not only to Congress, but to the Federal Government as a Government, and to the States. I think it must be considered as a negation reaching all the functionaries, legislative or executive, civil or military, supreme or subordinate, of the Federal Government: that is to say that there can be no valid suspension of the writ of habeas corpus under the jurisdiction of the United States, "Section 9 of Article 1, as has long unless when the public safety may been settled, is not restrictive of require it, in cases of rebellion or state, but only of national action. invasion." Martial Law, 8 Op. Atty.- Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113, 24 L. Gen. 365, 372. ed 77; Morgan's SS. Co. v. Louis[b] Habeas corpus ad subji-iana Bd. of Health, 118 U. S. 455, 6 ciendum.-Such a provision refers SCt 1114, 30 L. ed 237; Johnson v. only to the writ of habeas corpus ad Chicago, etc., El. Co., 119 U. S. 388, 7 subjiciendum, when a person stands SCt 254, 20 L. ed. 447." Gasquet V. committed or detained as a prisoner Lapeyre, 242 U. S. 367, 369, 37 SCt for a crime and does not include the 165, 61 L. ed. 367. other writs. In re Cain, 60 N. C. 31. Gasquet v. Lapeyre, 242 U. S. 367, 37 SCI 165, 61 L. ed. 367. But see supra note 22 [a]. 32. State v. Towery, 143 Ala. 48, in the disposition of the case.33 The refusal of the writ under a proper state of facts is not a suspension of the same. 34 [§ 235] C. Who May Suspend. It has been held that only the legislative branch of the government can suspend or authorize the suspension of the writ;35 but there is authority to the contrary. 36 Congress may suspend the privilege of the writ generally or in particular cases, 37 and it may suspend it directly, or it may commit the matter within proper limits to the judgment of the president. 39 38 In England, only parliament can suspend the writ,40 and in several instances it has made use of this power. 41 In Canada it has been held that the Canadian parliament has no constitutional right to abolish the Habeas Corpus Act, such legislative power being restricted to the imperial parliament.42 But it has also been held that an order in council, in effect suspending the writ of habeas corpus as to persons taken into military custody, was valid.* [§ 236] D. As to Whom Suspended. The mean39 S 309; Macready v. Wilcox, 33 Conn. 321. 33. Macready v. Wilcox, 33 Conn. 321; Peo. v. Kaiser, 150 App. Div. 541, 135 NYS 274 [aff 206 N. Y. 46, 99 NE 195]. 34. State v. Wurdeman, 254 Mo. 561, 153 SW 849. See also Busse v. Barr, 132 Iowa 463, 109 NW 920 (a statute denying accused the right to use the writ to question certain errors and irregularities in his indictment and trial does not violate a constitutional prohibition against the suspension or refusal of the writ). 35. U. S.-Ex p. Bollman, 4 Cranch 75, 2 L. ed. 554; Ex p. Benedict, 3 F. Cas. No. 1,292; McCall V. McDowell, 15 F. Cas. No. 8,673, 1 Abb. 212. 1 Deady 233: Ex p. Merryman, 17 F. Cas. No. 9,487, Taney 246; Martial Law, 8 Op. Atty.-Gen. 365. See also U. S. v. Porter, 27 F. Cas. No. 16,074a, 2 Hayw. & H. 394 (where the court, finding itself without physical power to enforce its lawful process against the military subordinates of the president, entered on its records a protest against what is considered a usurpation of authority by the president). Ark.-Wright v. Johnson, 5 Ark. 687. Ind.-Warren v. Paul, 22 Ind. 276. Mont. In re McDonald, 49 Mont. 454, 143 P 947, LRA1915B 988, Ann Cas1916A 1166. Wis. In re Kemp, 16 Wis. 359. See also Ex p. Moyer, (Colo.) 91 P 738 (question raised but not decided); Ex p. Moore, 64 N. C. 802 (under a constitutional provision absolutely prohibiting the suspending of the writ, the governor cannot suspend it even in a county which he has declared to be in a state of insurrection and in which he has proclaimed martial law). 43 ing of this provision in the constitution of the United States would seem to be that, when the public safety is endangered by rebellion or invasion, the privilege of this writ may be suspended as to persons suspected of or charged with aiding, sustaining, or promoting such rebellion or invasion, and thereby endangering the public safety. It was never designed to prevent the discharge of persons illegally held as soldiers." 45 44 [237] E. Effect of Suspension. Suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus does not suspend the writ itself. The writ issues as a matter of course; and, on its return, the court decides whether the applicant is denied the right of proceeding any further.40 [238] F. Writs Issued by State Courts. The jurisdiction of the writ of habeas corpus rightfully belongs to the respective states, and the federal government is inhibited from suspending its privilege, except in case of rebellion or invasion.47 Neither the president nor congress can suspend the issuing of the writ by state courts.48 tion depends on political considera- | 467; In re Fagan, 8 F. Cas. No. 4,604, [a] Congress is the exclusive Ex p. Field, 9 F. Čas. No. 4,761, [a] The president (1) has power to suspend (Ex p. Field, 9 F. Cas. No. 4,761, 5 Blatchf. 63; In re Dugan, 6 D. C. 131), (2) or, in a time of a dangerous insurrection to refuse to obey (Suspension of the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, 10 Op. Atty.-Gen. 74) the writ. [b] Governor or military officer.In case of insurrection or rebellion, the governor, or military officer in command, for the purpose of suppressing the same, may suspend the writ of habeas corpus, or disregard such writ, if issued. In re Boyle, 6 Ida. 609, 57 P 706, 96 AmSR 286, 45 LRA 832 [app dism 178 U. S. 611, 20 SCt 1029, 44 L. ed. 1215]. 37. McCall v. McDowell. 15 F. Cas. No. 8,673, 1 Abb. 212, Deady 233. [b] In the Philippines (1) provision is made by act of congress for the suspension of the writ by the president, or by the governor-general, with the approval of the Philippine commission. Fisher V. Baker, 203 U. S. 174, 27 SCt 135, 51 L. ed. 142, 7 AnnCas 1018. (2) When the president, or the governor-general with the approval of the Philippine commission, declares that a state of rebellion, insurrection, or invasion exists, this declaration or conclusion is conclusive against the judicial_department of the government. Barcelon v. Baker, 5 Philippine 87 [writ of error dism 203 U. S. 174, 27 SCt 135. 51 L. ed. 142, 7 AnnCas 1018]. (3) This department can only inquire whether the authority to suspend the writ has been actually conferred, and whether the officials on whom it has been conferred acted in conformity with such authority. Barcelon v. Baker, supra. 40. 1 Blackstone Comm. p 136. 41. St. 9 Geo. I c 1; 34 Geo. III c 54; 57 Geo. III c 3; 57 Geo. III c 55; 11 & 12 Vict. c 35; 29 & 30 Vict. c 1; 44 & 45 Vict. c 4; Rex v. Orrery, 8 Mod. 96, 88 Reprint 75 (construing 9 Geo. I c 1). 42. Blanshay v. Piche, 32 CanCr Cas 151. 24 RevdeJur 578. 43. 44. 45. Re MacSwiney, 15 OntWN 226. Peo. v. Gaul, 44 Barb. (N. Y.) 98. But see In re Fagan, 8 F. Cas. No. 4.604, 2 Sprague 91; In re Oliver, 17 Wis. 681 (both construing the act of March 3, 1863 authorizing pension in case of soldiers drafted or enlisted in the service of the United States). 38. McCall v. McDowell, 15 F. Cas. "If at any time the public safety sus 46. Ex p. Milligan, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 2, 18 L. ed. 281; State v. Sparks, 27 Tex. 705. 47. Bagnall v. Ableman, 4 Wis. 163: In re Booth, 3 Wis. 157. 43. Griffin v. Wilcox, 21 Ind. 370. 5. 4. See Habeas Corpus § 1. 7. 8. 9. A maxim meaning "We consider 6. See Habeas Corpus 1. * By JUAN D. MIRANDA (Habeas Corpus ad Deliberandum et Recipiendum-Hæretico Comburendo (De) inclusive except Spanish words and phrases). |