injustice of his detention on the merits.87
ment or order under which the petitioner is held
must be void for want of jurisdiction,88 and not
merely erroneous and voidable, to support a writ
of habeas corpus, because such writ constitutes a
collateral attack upon the judgment or order 90 and
is not a writ of review.91 Other classes of re-
straint must be without authority of law to support
the writ.92 Where the restraint is justified, the
writ does not lie.93 No imprisonment is illegal
where the process is a justification of the officer. 94
The right to the writ does not depend upon the
legality or illegality of the original caption but
upon the legality of the detention at the time appli-
cation is made for release.95 Detention which was

96

99

instituted the prosecution wishes to withdraw it, is not sufficient ground for release on habeas corpus.2 A person confined "for an act done in pursuance of the law of the United States or of a process of any judge or court thereof" is entitled to discharge on habeas corpus in the federal court.3

[§ 19] 2. Grounds of Illegality-a. Errors and Irregularities. Habeas corpus lies only to determine the question of the jurisdiction and lawful power of the custodian to hold petitioner in custody; it is not available as a substitute for an appeal or writ of error or other revisory remedy for the correction of errors either of law or fact, at least, not

lawful in its inception may afterward become un-
lawful, and the prisoner is then entitled to be dis-
charged on habeas corpus." Where the detention
is lawful at the time of the return, it is sufficient to
defeat the writ, 97 although some cases hold that
valid process obtained after the time of service of
the writ is not sufficient. 98 Where subsequent pro-
eeedings relate back to a lawful detention prior to
the time when the original writ was issued, the
petitioner will not be entitled to discharge. A
person detained unlawfully must be discharged from
the imprisonment under the unlawful proceedings,
although he may thereafter be detained on lawful
proceedings. The mere fact that the person who
Jennings, 134 Ga. 373, 67 SE 1037 mitment purporting to contain a
(where person arrested after pay- copy of the conviction which does
ment of fine imposed upon failure not exist). (3) Where a valid
to obey direction of judge to remove amended mittimus is substituted in
from particular house was held un- place of a defective mittimus. Kel-
lawfully detained, although subse- ley v. Thomas, supra; Ex p. Cross,
quently docket was changed by entry supra; Reg. v. House, 2 Man. 58.
of new charge).
See Matter of Elmy, 1 A. & E. 843,
28 ECL 389, 110 Reprint 1430 (under
peculiar circumstances, a second com-
mitment was not allowed). (4)
Where a fugitive from justice is kid-
naped or otherwise unlawfully de-
livered to the authorities having jur-
isdiction to cause his imprisonment.
Ex p. Ker, 18 Fed. 167; Kingen_v.
Kelley, 3 Wyo. 566, 28 P 36, 15 LRA
177. See Ex p. Ah Men, 77 Cal. 198,
19 P 380, 11 AmSR 263 (after judg-
ment). (5) When petitioner in ha-
beas corpus claims that the act creat-
ing the court wherein he was con-
victed was unconstitutional, the pro-
ceeding will be dismissed where he
appeared in a court to which his case
had been certified, and pleaded guilty
to the offense. In re Counsil, (Kan.)
59 P 274.

Hawaii. In re Akamu, 17 Hawaii

487.

Ida. In re Davis, 23 Ida. 473, 130 P 786.

Ill-Peo. v. Mallary, 195 Ill. 582, 63 NE 508, 88 AmSR 212.

Iowa.-Addis v. Applegate, 171 Iowa 150, 154 NW 168, AnnCas1917E 332. Kan. In re Stilts, 74 Kan. 805, 87 P 1134.

Minn.-Northfoss V. Welch, 116 Minn. 62, 133 NW 82, 36 LRANS 578, AnnCas1913A 1258; State v. Justus, 84 Minn. 237, 87 NW 770, 55 LRA 325.

N. Y.-Peo. v. Hanley, 164 App. Div. 150, 149 NYS 452 [foll Peo. v. Warden of City Prison, 149 App. Div. 939, 134 NYS 443] (after filing of information it is too late to inquire into sufficiency of evidence before 96. Ex p. Cameron, 81 Ala. 87, 1 S committing magistrate as the magis- 20 (prisoner detained beyond a reastrate's warrant is thereby super-onable time in a county jail after seded); Peo. v. Quinn, 150 App. Div. sentence to the penitentiary); Ex p. 813, 135 NYS 477; Peo. v. Grant, 50 State, 76 Ala. 482; Kirby v. State, Hun 243, 3 NYS 142 [rev 13 NYCiv 62 Ala. 51 (unreasonable detention Proc 305]; Peo. v. City Prison, 37 by sheriff after sentence); Ex p.j Misc. 635, 76 NYS 286, 16 N. Y. Cr. Dressler, 67 Cal. 257, 7 P 645 (un405 (conviction after arrest without reasonable detention of a witness); warrant). Peo. v. Mallary, 195 Ill. 582, 63 NE 508, 82 AmSR 212 (where a prisoner is transferred to the penitentiary as an incorrigible, under a statute, habeas corpus will lie to test the constitutionality of such statute); Matter of Lewinski, 66 HowPr (N. Y.) 175 (if the house of refuge refuses to receive a child under sixteen years of age who has been sentenced to imprisonment there, such child cannot be detained in the city jail, but must be discharged). See Ex p. Thompson, 32 Tex. Cr. 274, 22 SW 876 (the refusal of the county judge to hire a convict who has been imprisoned for nonpayment of a fine does not entitle him to a discharge on habeas corpus).

Oh.-Harrington v. Bader, 12 Oh. Cir. Ct. N. S. 257, 32 Oh. Cir. Ct. 493; Ex p. Healy, 8 OhS&CP 692, 38 CincL Bul 250.

Pa.-Ex p. McCabe, 22 Pa. 450; Com. v. Ransley, 26 Pa. Dist. 1043. Tenn.-State v. Endsley, 122 Tenn. 647, 126 SW 103, 135 AmSR 886.

Tex.-Ex p. Coupland, 26 Tex. 386; Ex p. White, 52 Tex. Cr. 541, 107 SW 839.

Eng. Reg. v. Richards, 5 Q. B. 926, 48 ECL 926, 114 Reprint 1497.

Alta.-Re Paul, 5 Alta. L. 440, 7 DomLR 24, 20 CanCrCas 159 [dist Re Paul, 5 Alta, L. 442, 7 DomLR 25, 20 CanCrCas 161].

Ont.-Rex v. Gage, 36 Ont. L. 183, 10 OntWN 19 [dism app 10 OntWN 13]; Rex v. Whitesides, 8 Ont. L. 622; Reg. v. Murray, 28 Ont. 549.

Que. Stone V. Vallee, 39 Que. Super. 424, 18 CanCrCas 222.

[a] Rule applied.—(1) Where at the termination of the examination before a magistrate there was sufficient cause to believe that accused was guilty, although the magistrate at some prior stage exceeded his jurisdiction or the proofs were insufficient. Peo. v. Quinn. 150 App. Div. 813, 135 NYS 477. (2) Where a defective warrant is replaced by a valid and sufficient warrant. Kelly V. Thomas, 15 Gray (Mass.) 192; Reg. v. Richards, 5 Q. B. 926, 48 ECL 926, 114 Reprint 1497; Re McMurrer, (Pr. Edw. Isl.) 18 CanCrCas 41. See Matter of Elmy, 1 A. & E. 843, 28 ECL 389, 110 Reprint 1430 (where it did not appear that prisoner was held under the subsequently issued warrant); Ex p. Cross, 2 H. & N. 354, 157 Reprint 147 (where held under a subsequent warrant). But see Labrie v. Malepart, 22 Que. Pr. 106 (holding that the crown will not be allowed to substitute a new com

94, 10 CanCrCas 269 (where new warrant for same offense attached to further return); Rex v. Bearden, 17 OntWN 68: Lafleur v. Vallee, (Que.) 5 DomLR 57.

[a] A substituted warrant of commitment may be returned to a writ of habeas corpus, although issued after the writ. Re McMurrer, (Pr. Edw. Isl.) 18 CanCrCas 41.

98. In re Doo Woon, 18 Fed. 898, 9 Sawy. 417; In re Knowlton, 5 Cr LMag 250. See in re Farez, 8 F. Cas. No. 4,644, 7 Blatchf. 34 (holding the return of the officer must show a legal detention under process at the time the writ was served).

99. Peo. v. Strassheim, 228 Ill. 581, 81 NE 1129.

[a] Illustration.-Where petitioner having suffered a mistrial, obtained a writ of habeas corpus, after which his case was redocketed and a new capias issued; such redocketing was admissible in the habeas corpus proceeding to show that the criminal court had not abandoned jurisdiction over petitioner. Peo. v. Strassheim, 228 I. 581, 81 NE 1129.

[b] Transcribing judgment after writ has been served when actually rendered before service was held lawful. Ex p. Alderete, 83 Tex. Cr. 358, 203 SW 763.

1. In re Jew Yuen Mow, 20 Hawaii 319; Peo. v. Crane, 94 App. Div. 397, 88 NYS 343.

relator

[a] Illustration.-Where has subsequently been duly charged with the commission of the crime attempted to be charged by the defec tive proceedings sought to be relieved against by the writ, it is the duty of the court to discharge defendant from custody as to any further detention under the particular proceedings complained of, if they are illegal. Peo. v. Crane, 94 App. Div. 397, 88 NYS 343.

2. Com. v. Fenicle, 6 Pa. Dist. 789, 20 Pa. Co. 68.

3. U. S. v. Jailer, 26 F. Cas. No. 15,463, 2 Abb. 265. See also infra § 125.

4. U. S.-Collins v. Johnston, 237 U. S. 502, 35 SCt 649, 59 L. ed. 1071; Charlton V. Kelly, 229 U. S. 447, 33 SCt 945, 57 L. ed. 1274, 46 LRANS 397; Ex p. Spencer, 228 U. S. 652, 33 SCt 709, 57 L. ed. 1010; Johnson v. Hoy, 227 U. S. 245, 33 SCt 240, 57 L. ed. 497; Williams V. Walsh, 222 U. S. 415, 32 SCt 137, 56 L. ed. 253; Wise v. Henkel, 220 U. S. 556, 31 SCt 599, 55 L. ed. 581; Peckham v. Henkel, 216 U. S. 483, 30 SCt 255, 54 L. ed. 579; Toy Toy v. Hopkins, 212 U. S. 542, 29 SCt 416, 53 L. ed. 644; In re Lincoln, 202 U. S. 178, 26 SCt 602, 50 L. ed. 984; Valentina v. Mercer. 201 U. S. 131, 26 SCt 368, 50 L. ed. 693; Felts v. Murphy, 201 U. S. 123, 26 SCt 366, 50 L. ed. 689; Dimmick v. Tompkins, 194 U. S. 540. 24 SCt 780, 48 L. ed. 1110; Terlin

97. Rule v. Geddes, 23 App. (D. C.) 31 (lawfulness of imprisonment of infant after attaining specified age not determined where she had not attained that age); In re Dye, 32 Mont. 132, 79 P 689; Stanfeal v. State, 78 Oh. St. 24, 84 NE 419, 14 AnnCas 138 (where an amendment to the mittimus after the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus so as to conform to the requirements of law was held proper); Ex p. Healy, 8 OhS&CP 692, 38 CincLBul 250 (legality at time of hearing sufficient); Ex p. Welch, 4 RevdeJur 437 (where the writ is granted because of the insufficiency of a commitment, a city justice may furnish the jailer with a legal warrant and so defeat the writ); Rex v. Barre, 15 Man. 420 den V. Ames, 184 U. S. 270, 22 (where a proper commitment was SCt 484. 46 L. ed. 534; Storti permitted to be substituted for a v. Massachusetts, 183 U. S. 138, 22 defective one on the application for SCt 72, 46 L. ed. 120 [aff 109 Fed. the writ); Re Muschik, 33 WestLR 807]; In re McKenzie, 180 U. S. 536, 468, 9 West Wkly 1285, 9 Sask. L. 1, 21 SCt 468, 45 L. ed. 657; Markuson 25 CanCrCas 170; Reg. v. House, 2 v. Boucher, 175 U. S. 184, 20 SCt 76, Man. 58 (held under a subsequent 44 L. ed. 124; Tinsley v. Anderson, valid warrant); Rex v. Mitchell, 24 171 U. S. 101, 18 SCt 805 43 L. Ont. L. 324, 19 OntWR 588, 19 Caned. 91; Crossley V. California, CrCas 113; In re Walton, 11 Ont. L. 168 U. S. 640, 18 SCt 242, 42 L. ed.

610; Ornelas v. Ruiz, 161 U. S. 502, 16 SCt 689, 40 L. ed. v. Grimley. 137 U. S. 147, 11 SCt 54, 787; U. S. 34 L. ed 636; Benson 127 U. S. 457, 8 SCt 1240, 32 L. ed. v. McMahon, 234; Ex p. Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 25 L. ec. 676; Ex p. Craig, 274 Fed. 177; Bens v. U. S., 266 Fed. 152; Ex p. Shears, 265 Fed. 959; Ex p. Blair, 253 Fed. 800 [aff 250 U. S. 273, 39 SCt 468, 63 L. ed. 979]; U. S. v. Heyburn, 245 Fed. 360; Myers v. Halligan, 244 Fed. 420, LRA1918B 157 CCA 46, 80; U. S. 228 Fed. v. McCarthy, 398; Filer 228 Fed. 242; Sibray v. U. S., 227 V. Steele, Fed. 1, 141 CCA 555; Ward, 224 Fed. 698, 140 CCA 238: Morgan V. Cooley v. Morgan, 221 Fed. 252, 136 CCA 210; Ex p. Lam Pui, 217 Fed. 456; Ex p. Jim Hong, 211 Fed. 73, 127 CCA 569; Ex p. Steiner, 202 Fed. 419, 420, 124 CCA 89; U. S. v. Lair, 195 Fed. 47, 115 CCA 49; Sibray v. U. S., 185 Fed. 401, 107 CCA 483; Kroschel v. Munkers, 179 Fed. 961; Peters v. U. S., 177 Fed. 885, 101 CCA 99 [certiorari den 217 U. S. 606, 30 SCt 696. 54 L. ed. 900]; Ex p. Powers, 129 Fed. 985; Iowa v. Jones, 128 Fed. 626; In re Reiner, 122 Fed. 109; In re Nevitt, 117 Fed. 448, 54 CCA 622; In re Lewis, 114 Fed. 963; Deming v. McClaughry, 113 Fed. 639, 51 CCA 349 [aff 186 U. S. 49, 22 SCt 786, 46 L. ed. 1049]: In re Grin, 112 Fed. 790 [aff 187 U. S. 181, 23 SCt 98, 47 L. ed. 130]; In re Chow Loy. 110 Fed. 952 [aff 112 Fed. 354, 50 CCA 279]; Cohn v. Jones, 100 Fed. 639; De Bara v. U. S., 99 Fed. 942, 40 CCA 194; In re Durrant, 84 Fed. 314 [quot In re Frederich, 149 U. S. 70, 13 SCt 793, 37 L. ed. 653]; In re May, 82 Fed. 422; Sternaman v. Peck, 80 Fed. 883, 26 CCA 214; In re Nelson, 69 Fed. 712; In re Rickelt, 61 Fed. 203. In re Bonner, 57 Fed. 184; In re MacDonnell, 16 F. Cas. No. 8,772, 11 Blatchf. 170.

Ala.-York v. Willingham, 205 Ala. 303, 88 S 219; Cox v. State, 157 Ala. 1, 47 S 1025; Ex p. Handy, 68 Ala. 303; York v. Willingham, (A.) 88 S 218; Bryant v. State, 15 Ala. A. 641, 74 S 746.

Alaska.-O'Neill Alaska 81.

V. Jordan,

5

41.

Ariz.-In re Silvas, 16 Ariz. 140 P 988; Ex p. Ramirez, 11 Ariz. 256, 90 P 323.

Ark. Ex p. Williams, 99 Ark. 475. 138 SW 985.

Cal.-Ex p. Smith, 161 Cal. 208, 118 P 710; Ex p. Long, 114 Cal. 159, 45 P 1057; Ex p. Ah Men, 77 Cal. 198; Ex p. McDonald, 2 Cal. Unrep. Cas. 853, 17 P 234; Ex p. Kaster, (A.) 198 P 1029; Ex p. Bracklis, (A.) 198 P 659; Ex p. Gutierrez, (A.) 1004; Ex p. Todd, (A.) 186 P 790; In 188 P re Myrtle, 2 Cal. A. 383, 84 P 335.

Conn.-Scott v. Spiegel, 67 Conn. 349, 35 A 262.

D. C.-U. S. v. Chambers, 18 App. 287.

Fla. -Crooke v. Van Pelt. 76 Fla. 20, 79 S 166; State v. Dillon, 75 Fla. 785, 79 S 29; In re Robinson, 73 Fla. 1068, 75 S 604, LRA1918B 1148; Mooneyham v. Bowles, 72 Fla. 259, 72 S 931; Dowling v. Lee, 68 Fla. 23, 66 S 142; Kinkaid v. Jackson, 66 Fla. 378, 63 S 706; Hardee v. Brown, 56 Fla. 377, 47 S 834; Logan v. Childs, 51 Fla. 238, 41 S 197; Randall v. Tillis, 43 Fla. 43, 29 S 540.

Ga.-Blackstone v. Nelson, 151 Ga. 706, 108 SE 114; Smith v. Milton, 149 Ga. 28, 98 SE 607; Holder v. Beavers, 141 Ga. 217, 80 SE 715; Harrell v. Avera, 139 Ga. 340, 77 SE 160; Davis v. Smith, 7 Ga. A. 192, 66 SE 401: Yeates v. Roberson, 4 Ga. A. 573, 62 SE 104.

HABEAS CORPUS

463, 109 NW 920.

Md-State v. Mace, 5 Md. 337.
Mass. In re Sellers, 186 Mass. 301,
35, 51 NE 191; In
71 NE, 542; In re Bishop, 172 Mass.
12 Cush. 598 (where, however, the
Mass. 11, 44 NE 1068; In re Feeley,
re Stalker, 167
prisoner); In re Ross, 2 Pick. 165.
court nevertheless discharged the
Mich. In re Joseph, 206 Mich. 659,
Mich. 438, 133 NW 315; In re Vitali,
173 NW 358; In re Forscutt, 167
153 Mich. 514, 116 NW 1066, 126 Am
SR 535; In re Manaca, 146 Mich. 697,
110 NW 75; In re Butler, 138 Mich.
453, 101 NW 630; In re Lewis, 124
Mich. 199, 82 NW 816; In re Maguire,
wood, 30 Mich. 502.
114 Mich. 80, 72 NW 15; In re Under-

359, 177 NW 348; State v. Konskah,
Minn.-State v. Rice,
136 Minn. 331, 162 NW 353; State v.
145 Minn.
Riley, 116 Minn. 1, 133 NW 86, 87;
State v. Phillips, 73 Minn.
NW 1029; State v. Norby, 69 Minn.
77, 75
Minn. 465, 71 NW 681.
451, 72, NW 703; State v. Wolfer, 68
Miss.-Emanuel v. State, 36 Miss.

627.

Mo.-Buckley v. Hall, 215 Mo. 93,
Mo. 657, 109 SW 626; Ex p. Mitchell,
114 SW 954; Ex p. McLaughlin, 210
104 Mo. 121, 16 SW 118, 24 AmSR
324; Ex p. Leach, 149 Mo. A. 317,
130 SW 394.

Mont. In re Gomez, 52 Mont. 189,
156 P 1078; In re Jones, 46 Mont. 122,
Dist. Ct., 32 Mont. 18, 79 P 409.
126 P 929; State v. Second Judicial

P 137, 13 LRANS 518.
Nev.-Ex p. Tani, 29 Nev. 385, 91

P 598, 51 LRANS 373.
N. M.-Ex p. Cica, 18 N. M. 452, 137

V.

N. Y.-Peo. v. Atwell, 232 N. Y. 96,
copal House of Mercy, 128 N. Y. 180,
133 NE 364; Peo. v. Protestant Epis-
28 NE 473 [rev 13 NYS 401]; Peo. v.
Kelly. 32 Hun 536 [mod on other
right, 115 Misc. 206. 189 NYS 167;
grounds 97 N. Y. 212]; Peo. v. En-
Peo.
tiary, 168 NYS 704; Peo. v. McLaugh-
New York County Peniten-
lin. 77 Misc. 13, 136 NYS 122; Peo.
v. New York S. P. C. C., 27 Misc. 457,
58 NYS 118, 29 NYCivProc 191, 14
N. Y. Cr. 147; Yates v. Lansing, 5
Johns. 282. But see Peo. v. Riseley,
an unlawful sentence was discharged,
38 Hun 280 (relator detained under
although he might have appealed).
N. C.-State v. Dunn, 159 N. C.
470, 74 SE 1014; In
157 N. C. 340, 72 SE 1049; State v.
re Watson,
re Holley, 154 N. C. 163, 69 S
Webb, 155 N. C. 426, 70 SE 1064; In
P 506; Ex p. Maas, 10 Okl. 302, 61 P
Okl.-In re Dykes, 13 Okl. 3.9.,74
872.
1057.

Or.-Ex p. Stacey, 75 P 1060.
Pa.-Com. v. Reifsteck, 115 A 130;
Com. v. Francies, 53 Pa. Super. 278;
Com. v. Seechrist, 27 Pa. Super. 423.
Porto Rico.-Ex p. Huertas,
Porto Rico 489; Ex p. Carrillo, 19
22
Porto Rico 489; Ex p. Le Hardy, 17
Porto Rico 706;
Porto Rico 985; Ex p. Pesquera, 17
Ex P.
Porto Rico 629; Ex p. Thomas, 12
Porto Rico 790; Ex p. Lebron,
Sierra, 16
16
10 Porto Rico Fed. 40; Ex p. Diaz, 7
Porto Rico 350; Matter of Cardona,
Porto Rico 153, 176; Ex p. Bird, 5
Porto Rico 241; Ex p. Cintron, 5
Porto Rico 87.

S. C.-State v. Garlington, 56 S. C.
413, 34 SE 689.

55, 143 NW 1055.
Wis.-Arnold v. Schmidt, 155 Wis.
[1917] 1 K. B. 176.
Eng.-Rex
Camp,
140; Matter of McKinnon, 2 CanLJ
Can.-In re Sproule, 12 Can. S. C.
324.

CrCas 507,
N. S.-Rex v. Kavanagh, 5 Can

V.

Ont.-Reg. v. Murray, 28 Ont. 549. Ex p. Goldsberry, 27 Que. Super. 430, Que.-O'Neil Que. Super. 417, 29 CanCrCas 340; Carbonneau, 54 ghue, 9 L. C. 285. 10 CanCrCas 392; Ex p. Dona

See also cases infra note 6. "The writ of error and habeas corpus have each their separate offices. There are ample remedies provided for the correction of irregularities sult in conviction and in sentences, by and errors in proceedings which relarities in such cases, the summary writ of error. remedy by habeas corpus can not be had." For errors and irreguEx p. Shaw, 7 Oh. St. 81, 82, 70 AmD 55 [quot In re Allen, 91 Oh. St. 315, 326, 110 NE 535]. exercise original, not appellate jur"In habeas corpus matters we 395, 105 P 1042. isdiction." In re Newcomb, 56 Wash.

V.

Bowles, 72 Fla. 259, 72 S 931; Cross [a] Certiorari. — Mooneyham Davis v. Smith, 7 Ga. A. 192, 66 SE v. Foote, 17 Ga. A. 802, 88 SE 594; 137, 13 LRANS 518; Rivera v. Peo., 401; Ex p. Tani, 29 Nev. 385, 91 P Porto 26 Porto Rico 161; Ex p. Diaz, 7 Walsh, 59 Tex. Cr. 409, 129 SW 118; Rico 153; Ex p. Taylor, 63 Tex. Cr. 571, 140 SW 999; Ex p. Cox, 53 Tex. Cr. 240, 109 Ex p. Cain, 56 Tex. Cr. 538, 120 SW 774; Ex p. SW 369. liams v. Walsh, 222 U. S. 415, 422, 32 [b] Motion for new trial.—WilSCt 137, 56 L. ed. 253 ("We have often said that the writ of habeas the office of a writ of error. corpus cannot be made to perform obtaining a new trial"); Harrell v. tainly cannot be made the means of It cerAvera, 139 Ga. 340, 77 SE 160.

V.

[c] Motion to quash.-Crooke Van Pelt, 76 Fla. 20, 79 S 166; In re Robinson, 73 Fla. 1068, 75 S 604, LRA 1918B 1148; Mooneyham v. Bowles, 72 Fla. 259, 72 S 931; Ex p. Clarkson, 72 Fla. 220, 72 S 675. [d] Supersedeas.-Ex p. Taylor, 63 Tex. Cr. 571, 140 SW Walsh, 59 Tex. Cr. 409, 129 SW 118; 774: Ex p. Ex p. Cain, 56 Tex. Cr. 538, 120 SW 999; Ex p. Cox, 53 Tex. Cr. 240, 109 SW 369.

a

[e] Not a summary review.-"A habeas corpus cannot be used as summary process to review or revise errors or irregularities in the sentence of a court of competent jurisdiction." McGorray v. Murphy, 80 Cas 444. Oh. St. 413, 416, 88 NE 881, 17 Ann

[f] In nature of review.-"Where no new facts are attention of the justice, his action brought to the on the writ of habeas corpus is in the nature of appellate action; but it is not the purpose of the law that day, 18 App. (D. C.) 426, 431. this writ shall be used for an appeal, or writ of error." Palmer v. Colla

522, 201 SW 743, AnnCas1918D 749. Tenn.-State v. West, 139 Tenn. Tex.-Ex p. Riddle, Ex p. Gordon, 89 Tex. Cr. 125, 232 725; Ex p. Garcia, (Cr.) 234 SW 892; (Cr.) 236 SW SW 520; Ex p. Jackson, 83 Tex. Cr. 55, 200 SW 1092; Ex p. Cain, 56 Tex. Hawaii.-In re Anin, 17 Hawaii | Tex. Cr. 240, 109 SW 369; Ex p. Wind-aid of the other. Cr. 538, 120 SW 999; Ex p. Cox, 53

338.

Ida. In re Davis, 23 Ida. 473, 130 P 786; Ex p. Knudtson, 9 Ida. 676, 79 P 641.

Ill.-Peo. v. Jonas, 173 Ill. 316. 50 NE 1051; Sellers v. Peo., 6 Ill. 183. Ind.-William v. Hert, 157 Ind. 211, 60 NE 1067, 87 AmSR 203; Wentworth v. Alexander, 66 Ind. 39. Iowa. Busse

v. Barr, 132 Iowa

V.

sor, (Cr.) 78 SW 510; Ex p. English,
(Cr.) 53 SW 106.
Utah.-Winnovich
Utah 345, 93 P 988; In re Clark, 28
Emery, 33
Utah 268, 78 P 475; Ex p. Clawson,
28 L. ed. 957].
5 P 74 [aff 113 U. S. 143, 5 SCt 393,

ory control are not concurrent reme-
[g] "Habeas corpus and supervis-
dies, and one cannot be invoked in
lenges the jurisdiction of the lower
The former chal-
court, while the latter concedes jur-
isdiction." State v. Fergus County
Tenth Judicial Dist. Ct., 51 Mont. 195,
197, 149 P 973.

[h] Anticipatory writ of error.-
Habeas corpus may not be used as
483, 63 L. ed. 983.
an anticipatory writ of error.
Ply v. McCarthy, 250 U. S. 283, 39 SCt
Rume-

Vt. In re Hook, 115 A 730.
Wash.-Zenner
1058; Smith v. Sullivan, 33 Wash. 30,
V. Graham, 74

in the absence of exceptional circumstances. Where the restraint is under legal process, mere errors and irregularities which do not render the proceeding

[i] In Missouri, by statute, if a sentence is erroneous as to time or place of imprisonment, the court on habeas corpus must sentence the prisoner to the proper place for the proper length of time. Ex p. Bethurum, 66 Mo. 545, [j] In Canada.-See infra § 196. Existence of remedy by writ of error or appeal see supra § 11. Interference by federal court with proceedings in state court see supra 38.

5. In re Lincoln, 202 U. S. 178. 26 SCt 602, 50 L. ed. 984 [dist In re Heff, 197 U. S. 488, 25 SCt 506, 49 L. ed. 8481; Ex p. Belt, 159 U. S. 95, 15 SCt 987, 40 L. ed. 88; Peo. v. Siman, 284 Ill. 28, 119 NE 940; Peo. v. Jennings, 108 Misc. 93, 177 NYS 210 [aff 185 NYS 949 mem]. See also supra § 11. and note 38.

But see supra § 10 text

6

void are not ground for relief by habeas corpus, because in such cases the restraint is not illegal. Inquiry into error or irregularity committed has 163, 21 L. ed. 872; Ex p. Milligan, 4, Ex p. Wong You Ting, 106 Cal. Wall. 2, 18 L. ed. 281; Ableman v 296, 39 P 627; Ex p. Gallagher, 101 Booth, 21 How. 506, 16 L. ed. 169; Cal. 113, 35 P 449; Ex p. Noble, 96 Matter of Metzger, 5 How. 176, 12 Cal. 362, 31 P 224; Ex p. Liddell, 93 L. ed. 104; Ex p. Watkins, 3 Pet. Cal. 633, 29 P 251; Ex p. Miller, 89 193, 7 L. ed. 650; Ex p. Kearney, 7 Cal. 41, 26 P 620; Ex p. Walpole, 85 Wheat. 38, 5 L. ed. 391; Ormsby v. Cal. 362, 24 P 657; Ex p. Keil, 85 Cal. U. S., 273 Fed. 977; Shore v. Splain, 309, 24 P 742; Ex p. Clark, 85 Cal. 203, 258 Fed. 150, 49 App. (D. C.) 6; Col- 24 P 726; Ex p. Ah Sam, 83 Cal. 620, lins v. Morgan, 243 Fed. 495, 165 24 P 276; Ex p. McConnell, 83 Cal. CCA 193; Linningen v. Morgen, 241 558, 23 P 1119; Ex p. Spencer, 83 Cal. Fed. 645, 154 CCA 403; Ex p. Thurs- 460, 23 P 395, 17 AmSR 266; Ex p. ton, 233 Fed. 847; Blake v. Moyer, Rosenheim, 83 Cal. 388, 23 2 372; 208 Fed. 678, 125 CCA 576; Stevens Ex p. Miller, 82 Cal. 454, 22 P 1113; v. McClaughry, 207 Fed. 18, 125 Ex p. Sternes, 77 Cal. 156, 19 P 275, CCA 102, 51 LRANS 390; Ex p. Blod- 11 AmSR 251; Ex p. Henshaw, 73 gett, 192 Fed. 77; Connella v. Has- Cal. 486, 15 P 110; Ex p. Mirande, 73 kell, 158 Fed. 285, 87 CCA 111; In Cal. 365, 14 P 888; In re Kowalsky, re Terrill, 144 Fed. 616, 75 CCA 418; 73 Cal. 120, 14 P 399; Ex p. Wilson, In re Herskovitz, 136 Fed. 713; In 73 Cal. 97, 14 P 393; Ex p. Lehmkuhl, re Strauss, 126 Fed. 327, 63 CCA 99: 72 Cal. 53, 13 P 148; Ex p. Moan, 65 Ex p. Haggerty, 124 Fed. 441; Chow Cal. 216, 3 P 644; Ex p. Cottrell, 59 Loy v. U. S., 112 Fed. 354, 50 CCA Cal. 420; Ex p. Granice, 51 Cal. 375; 279; In re Reese, 107 Fed. 942, 47 Ex p. Bowen, 46 Cal. 112; Ex p. Max, CCA 87; Carter v. McClaughry, 105 44 Cal. 579 [overr Ex p. Ah Cha. 40 Fed. 614 [aff 183 U. S. 365, 22 SCt Cal. 426]; Ex p. Hartman, 44 Cal. 181, 46 L. ed. 236]; In re Count de 32; Ex p. Murray, 43 Cal. 455; Ex p. Toulouse Lautrec, 102 Fed. 878, 43 Bull, 42 Cal. 196; Ex p. McLaughlin, CCA 42; Ex p. Jones, 96 Fed. 200; 41 Cal. 211, 10 AmR 272; Ex p. McEaton v. West Virginia, 91 Fed. 760, Cullough, 35 Cal. 97; Ex p. Gibson, 34 CCA 68; Price v. McCarty, 89 Fed. 31 Cal. 619, 91 AmD 546; Ex p. Bird, 84, 32 CCA 162; In re Greenwald, 19 Cal. 130; Ex p. Philbrook, (A.) 191 77 Fed. 590; In re Blackbird, 66 Fed. P 77; In re Jacobs, 38 Cal. A. 474, 176 541; In re Maldonado, 63 Fed. 825; P 698; In re Danford. 13 Cal. A. In re King, 51 Fed. 434; In re Jor- 741, 110 P 692; Ex p. King, 10 Cal. dan, 49 Fed. 238; In re Boyd, 49 A. 282, 101 P 810; Ex p. Von Vetsera, Fed. 48, 1 CCA 156; In re Leo Hem 7 Cal. A. 136, 93 P 1036. Bow, 47 Fed. 302; In re Enslow, 45 Fed. 351; Ex p. Ulrich, 43 Fed. 661 [app dism 149 U. S. 789. 13 SCt 1053, 37 L. ed. 967]; U. S. v. Patterson, 29 Fed. 775; In re Davison, 21 Fed. 618; In re Bogart, 3 F. Cas. No. 1,596, 2 Sawy. 396; In re Callicot, 4 F. Cas. No. 2,323, 8 Blatchf. 89; In re Griffin, 11 F. Cas. No. 5,815, Chase 364, 25 Tex. Suppl. 623; Johnson v. U. 13 F. Cas. No. 7,418, 3 McLean 89; In re Kaine, 14 F. Cas. No. 7,598, 10 NYLegObs 257; Ex p. Parks, 18 F. Cas. No. 10,764, 1 Hughes 604; Ex p. Shaffenburg, 21 F. Cas No. 12,696, 4 Dill. 271.

S.,

6. U. S.-McMicking v. Schields, 238 U. S. 99, 35 SCt 665, 59 L. ed. 1220; Frank v. Mangum, 237 U. S. 309, 35 SCt 582, 59 L. ed. 969; Henry v. Henkel, 235 U. S. 219, 35 SCt 54, 59 L. ed. 203; McNamara v. Henkel, 226 U. S. 520, 33 SCt 146, 57 L. ed. 330; Glasgow v. Moyer, 225 U. S. 420, 32 SCt 753, 56 L. ed. 1147; In re Gregory, 219 U. S. 210, 31 SCt 143, 55 L. ed. 184; Harlan v. McGourin, 218 U. S. 442, 31 SCt 44, 54 L. ed. 1101, 21 AnnCas 849; Keizo v. Henry, 211 U. S. 146, 29 SCt 41, 53 L. ed. 125; Riggins v. U. S., 199 U. S. 547, 26 SCt 147, 50 L. ed. 303; Harkrader v. Wadley, 172 U. S. 148, 19 SCt 119. 43 L. ed. 399; Anderson v. Treat, 172 U. S. 24, 19 SCt 67, 43 L. ed. 351; In re Durrant, 169 U. S. 39, 18 SCt 291, 42 L. ed. 653; In re Lennon, 166 U. S. 548, 17 SCt 658, 41 L. ed. 1110; In re Eckart, 166 U. S. 481, 17 SCt 638, 41 L. ed. 1085; Kohl v. Lehlback, 160 U. S. 293, 16 SCt 304, 40 L. ed, 432; Ex p. Belt, 159 U. S. 95, 15 SCt 987. 40 L. ed. 88; Andrews v. Swartz, 156 U. S. 272, 15 SCt 389, 39 L. ed. 422; U. S. v. Pridgeon, 153 U. S. 48, 14 SCt 746. 38 L. ed. 631; In re Swan, 150 U. S. 637, 14 SCt 225, 37 L. ed. 1207; Ex p. Tyler, 149 U. S. 164, 13 SCt 785, 37 L. ed. 689; Ex p. Frederich, 149 U. S. 70, 13 SCt 793, 37 L. ed. 653; In re Schneider, 148 U. S. 162. 13 SCt 572, 37 L. ed. 406; Nishimura Ekiu v. U. S., 142 U. S. 651, 12 SCt 236, 35 L. ed. 1146; In re Graham, 138 U. S. 461, 11 SCt 363, 34 L. ed. 1051; In re Lancaster, 137 U. S. 393, 11 SCt 117, 34 L. ed. 713; Stevens v. Fuller, 136 U. S. 468, 10 SCt 911, 34 L. ed. 461; Oteiza v. Jacobus, 136 U. S. 330, 10 SCt 1031, 34 L. ed. 464; In re Lane, 135 U. S. 443, 10 SCt 760, 34 L. ed. 219; Fitzgerald v. Green, 134 U S. 377, 10 SCt 586, 33 L. ed. 951; Wight v. Nicholson, 134 U. S.51; Ex p. McKivett, 55 Ala. 236; Ex 136. 10 SCt 487, 33 L. ed. 865; Davis v. Beason, 133 U. S. 333, 10 SCt 299, 33 L. ed. 637; Ex p. Savin, 131 U. S. 267, 9 SCt 699, 33 L. ed. 150; Nielsen, Petitioner, 131 U. S. 176, 9 SCt 672, 33 L. ed. 118; Ex p. Terry, 128 U. S. 289, 9 SCt 77, 32 L. ed. 405; Ex p. Coy, 127 U. S. 731, 8 SCt 1263, 32 L. ed. 274; Ex p. Harding, 120 U. S. 782, 7 SCt 780, 30 L. ed. 824; Ex p. Snow, 120 U. S. 274, 7 SCt 556, 30 L. ed. 658; Ex p. Fonda, 117 U. S. 516, 6 SCt 848, 29 L. ed. 994; Wales V. Whitney, 114 U. S. 564, 5 SCt 1050, 29 L. ed. 277; Ex p. Wilson, 114 U. S. 417, 5 SCt 935, 29 L. ed. 89; Ex p. Bigelow, 113 U. S. 328, 5 SCt 542, 28 L. ed. 1005; Ex p. Crouch, 112 U. S. 178, 5 SCt 96, 28 L. ed. 690; Ex p. Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651, 4 SCt 152, 28 L. ed. 274; Ex p. Caril, 106 U. S. 521, 1 SCt 535, 27 L. ed. 288; Ex p. Curtis, 166 U. S. 371, 1 SCt 381, 27 L. ed. 232; Ex p. Mason, 105 U. S. 696, 26 L. ed. 1213; Ex p Rowland, 104 U. S. 604, 26 L. ed. 861; Ex p. Clarke, 100 U. S. 399, 25 L. ed. 715; Ex p. Siebold, 100 U. S. 371, 25 L. ed. 717; Ex p. Reed, 100 U. S. 13, 25 L. ed. 538; Ex p. Parks, 93 U. S. 18, 23 L. ed. 787; Ex p. Lange, 18 Wall.

Ala.-Ex p. Adams, 170 Ala. 105, 54 S 501; Sneed V. State, 157 Ala. 8, 47 S 1028; Selma v. Till, 42 S 405; Towery v. State, 143 Ala. 59, 39 S 310; Bray v. State, 140 Ala. 172, 37 S 250; Benson v. State, 124 Ala. 92, 27 S 1; Ex p. Roberson, 123 Ala. 103, 26 S 645, 82 AmSR 107; Ex p. Chandler, 114 Ala. 8, 22 S 285; Ex p. Bizzell, 112 Ala. 210, 21 S 371; Ex p. Gayles, 108 Ala. 514, 19 S 12; Ex p. State, 87 Ala. 46, 6 S 328; Ex p. Dover, 75 Ala. 40; Ex p. McGlawn, 75 Ala. 38; In re Merlet, 71 Ala. 371; Ex p. Hubbard, 65 Ala. 473; Ex p. Montgomery, 64 Ala. 463; Ex p. Simmons, 62 Ala. 416; Kirby v. State, 62 Ala. p. State, 51 Ala. 60; Ex p. Sam, 51 Ala. 34; Ex p. Whitaker, 43 Ala. 323; Ridgeway v. Bessemer, 9 Ala. A. 470, 64 S 189; Smith v. State, 5 Ala. A. 210, 58 S 117; Flowers v. State, 4 Ala. A. 221, 59 S 238.

Alaska-In re Hernandez, 5 Alaska 421; In re Burkell, 2 Alaska 108; Ex p. Dubuque, 1 Alaska 16.

Ariz.-Smith v. Terr., 4 Ariz. 95, 78 P 1035; In re Waldrip, 1 Ariz. 482, 2 P 751.

Ark. State v. Byles, 126 SW 94; Ex p. Brady, 70 Ark. 376, 68 SW 34; Ex p. Foote, 70 Ark. 12, 65 SW 706, 91 AmSR 63; Ex p. Adams, 60 Ark. 93, 28 SW 1086; In re Burrow, 55 Ark. 275, 18 SW 170; Ex p. Barnett, 51 Ark. 215, 10 SW 492; Ex p. Brandon, 49 Ark. 143, 4 SW 452; Arkansas Industrial Co. v. Neel, 48 Ark. 283, 3 SW 631; Ex p. Jackson, 45 Ark. 158.

Colo.-Martin v. Second Judicial Dist. Ct., 37 Colo. 110, 86 P 82, 119 AmSR 262; In re hany, 29 Colo. 442, 68 P 235; Peo. V. Arapahoe County Dist. Ct., 22 Colo. 422, 45 P 402; In re Tyson, 21 Colo. 78, 39 P 1093; Ex p. Farnham, 3 Colo. 545.

Conn.-In re Bion, 59 Conn. 372, 20 A 662, 11 LRA 694.

D. C.-Posey v. Zinkham, 47 App. 293; Harris v. Nixon, 27 App. 94; Elliott v. U. S., 23 App. 456; Palmer v. Colladay, 18 App. 426; U. S. v. Davis, 18 App. 280; Ex p. Dries, 3 App. 165.

Fla-Dukes v. State, 88 S 474; Keen v. Murray, 75 Fla. 154, 77 S 855; Ex p. Knight, 52 Fla. 144, 41 S 786, 120 AmSR 191; Bronk v. State, 43 Fla. 461, 31 S 248, 99 AmSR 119; Ex p. Senior, 37 Fla. 1, 19 S 652, 32 LRA 133; Ex p. Prince, 27 Fla. 196, 9 S 659, 26 AmSR 67; Ex p. Bowen, 25 Fla. 214, 6 S 65; Ex p. Hunter, 16 Fla. 575.

Ga-Fountain v. Tarver, 150 Ga. 628, 104 SE 443; Hicks v. Hamrick, 144 Ga. 403, 87 SE 415; Nash v. Mangum, 141 Ga. 648, 81 SE 883; Saffold v. Mangum, 139 Ga. 119, 76 SE 858; Shuler v. Wills, 126 Ga. 73, 54 SE 965; Manor v. Donahoo, 117 Ga. 304, 43 SE 719; McFarland v. Donaldson, 115 Ga. 567, 41 SE 1000; Tolleson v. Greene, 83 Ga. 499, 10 SE 120;

Singleton_v. Holmes, 70 Ga. 407;

State v. Bridges, 64 Ga. 146;_Lark v. State, 55 Ga. 435; Cross v. Foote, 17 Ga. A. 802, 88 SE 594.

Hawaii.-In re Akamu, 17 Hawaii

487.

Ill.-Peo. v. Siman, 284 Ill. 28, 119 NE 940; Peo. v. Whitman, 277 Ill. 408, 115 NE 531; Peo. v. Graves, 276 II. 350, 114 NE 556; Peo. v. Zimmer, 252 I. 9, 96 NE 529; Peo. v. Strassheim, 242 Ill. 359, 90 NE 118; reo. v. Heider, 225 111. 347, 80 NE 291, 11 LRANS 257; Peo. v. Murphy, 212 Ill. 584, 72 NE 902; Peo. v. Barrett, 203 111. 99, 67 NE 742, 96 AmSR 296; Peo. v. Murphy, 202 Ill 493, 67 NE 226; Peo. v. Murphy, 188 Ill. 144, 58 NE 984; Peo. v. Allen, 160 Ill. 400, 43 NE 332; Ex p. Smith, 117 Ill. 63, 7 NE 683; Peo. v. Foster, 104 Ill. 156; Peo. v. Pirfenbrink, 96 Ill. 68; Ex p. Thompson, 93 Ill. 89; Peo. v. Whitson, 74 Ill. 20.

Cal. In re Wolff, 183 Cal. 602, 192 P 33; Ex p. Williams, 184 Cal. 11, 190 P 163; In re Reed, 143 Cal. 634, Ind.-Baker V. Krietenstein, 185 77 P 660, 101 AmSR 138; In re Lapi- Ind. 693, 114 NE 445; Tullis v. Shaw, que, 139 Cal. 204, 72 P 995; Ex p. 169 Ind. 662, 83 NE 376; Ryan V. Walker, 132 Cal. 143, 64 P 135; in Rhodes, 167 Ind. 121, 76 NE 249, 78. re Fife, 110 Cal. 8, 42 P 299; Ex p. NE 330; Perry v. Pernet, 165 Ind. 67, Miller, 109 Cal. 643, 42 P 428;74 NE 609, 6 AnnCas 533; Gillespiə

v. Rump, 163 Ind. 457, 72 NE 138; |
Cruthers v. Bray, 159 Ind. 685, 65
NE 517; Winslow v. Green, 155 Ind.
368, 58 NE 259; Pritchett v. Cox, 154
Ind. 108, 56 NE 20; Board of Chil-
dren's Guardians v. Shutter, 139 Ind.
268, 34 NE 665, 31 LRA 740; Smith
v. Clausmeier, 136 Ind. 105, 35 NE
904, 43 AmSR 311; Davis v. Bible,
134 Ind. 108, 33 NE 910; Turner v.
Conkey, 132 Ind. 248, 31 NE 777, 32
AmSR 251, 17 LRA 509 [overr Smel-
zer v. Lockhart,, 97 Ind. 315]; Mc-
Laughlin v. Etchison, 127 Ind. 474,
27 NE 152, 22 AmSR 658; Willis v.
Bayless, 105 Ind. 363, 5 NE 8; Hold-
erman v. Thompson, 105 Ind. 112, 5
NE 175; Lucas v. Hawkins, 102 Ind.
64, 1 NE 358; Smith v. Hess, 91 Ind.
424; Wright v. State, 5 Ind. 290, 61
AmD 90, 7 Ind. 324.

Iowa.-Turney v. Barr, 75
758, 38 NW 550; State v. Orton, 67
Iowa
Iowa 554, 25 NW 775; Jackson
Boyd, 53 Iowa 536, 5 NW 734; Zelle
v.
v. McHenry, 51 Iowa 572, 2 NW 264;
Platt v. Harrison,
AmD 389.
6 Iowa 79, 71

HABEAS CORPUS

[§ 19

v. New York State Reformatory for
Women, 37 Misc. 92, 74 NYS 752;
Peo. v. Flynn, 37 Misc. 90, 74 NYS
740; Peo. v. Tamsen, 17 Misc. 212,
40 NYS 1047; Peo.
Misc. 563, 34
V. Schantz, 13
NYS 1099; Peo. v.
Gorman, 14 NYS 547 [aff 129 N. Y.
189, 66 HowPr 296, 1 N. Y. Cr. 508;
638 mem, 29 NE 1031 mem]; In re
138; Matter of Moses, 13 AbbNCas
Davison's Case, 13 AbbPr 129; Peo. v.
Nichols, 4 NYSt 659, 19 AbbNCas
AbbPr 92; Stewart's Case, 1 AbbPr
New
172;
York
210; Peo. v. Sheriff, 11 NYCivProc
Juvenile Asylum,
Proc 406, 15 AbbNCas 461; Peo. v.
12
307; Peo. v. New York Penitentiary,
Peo.
McEwen, 67 How Pr 105, 2 N. Y. Cr.
V. Walters, 7
37 HowPr 494; Matter of Baker, 11
NYCiv
HowPr 418; Peo. v. Cassels, 5 Hill
305; Yates' Case, 4 Johns. 317 [rev
164; U. S. Bank v. Jenkins, 18 Johns.
Peo. v. Goodhue, 2 Johns. Ch. 198;
on
Peo. v. Rulloff, 5 Park. Cr. 77; Peo.
other grounds 6
v. Gray, 11 AbbPr 56, 4 Park. Cr. 616;
Johns. 337];
Peo. v. Shea, 3 Park. Cr. 562; Peo.
Peo. v. McCormack, 4 Park. Cr. 9;
Cr. 650 [rev 10 HowPr 27]; Matter
of Goodhue, 1 City HallRec 153.
v. Cavanaugh, 2 AbbPr 84, 2 Park.

95 SE 903; State v. Burnette, 173 N.
C. 734, 91 SE 364; Ex p. McCown, 139
N. C.-In re Croom, 175 N. C. 455,
In re Schenck, 74 N. C. 607.
N. C. 95, 51 SE 957, 2 LRANS 603;

D. 183, 132 NW 662; State v. Barnes,.
139 NW 1051; State v. Floyd, 22 N.
N. D.-State v. Ross, 24 N. D. 586,
22 N. D. 18, 132 NW 215, 37 LRANS
114,
Beaverstad, 12 N. D. 527, 97 NW 548;
541.
AnnCas1913E
State v. Barnes, 3 N. D. 131, 54 NW
930; State

Mo.-State v. Andrae, 248 Mo. 1. 153 SW 1041; Ex p. Cornwall, 223 Mo. 259, 122 SW 666, 135 AmSR 507; Ex p. Gfeller, 178 Mo. 248, 77 SW 552; State v. Dobson, 135 Mo. 1, 36 SW 238; In re Copenhaver, 118 Mo. 377, 24 SW 161, 40 AmSR 382; Ex p. Kenney, 105 Mo. 535, 16 SW 938; Ex p. Clay, 98 Mo. 578, 11 SW 998; Ex 38 p. Crenshaw, 80 Mo. 447; Ex p. Kauf- v. • man, 73 Mo. 588; Ex p. Jilz, 64 Mo. 76 NYS 286, 16 N. Y. Cr. 405; For later cases, developments and changes in the law see cumulative Annotations, same title, page and note number