The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1875-04-28
EX-PARTE GEORGE M. HIBBLER
IIABEAs CORPUS.

Saturday, April IL, l67o.-NoW, this
cause coming on to be heard on appli.
cation Of applicant, and by consent OF
the district attorney, this cause Is con-
tinued until Monday, 10th instant. II
is further ordered that the prisoner be
placed In the custody Of j. IL. Barkly,
sheriff of Dallas county, subject to the
action of this court.
Monday, April 10, lS75.-On appli-
cant's motion, this cause Is continued
until tomorrow morning at half-past
8 O'clock.
Tuesday, April 20, lS75.-On motion
Of applicant, this cause is continued
until tomorrow morning at half-past
0 o'clock.
Wednesday, April 81, 1876 On mo-
ton of applicant, this cause is contin-
ued until Tomorrow at half-past 2
o'clock p. NJ.
Thursday, April 22.-On motion of
applicant, this cause is continued UNI
Til tomorrow at half-past one o'clock
p. NJ. The above several continuances
being granted for the purpose of allow
ing applicants counsel to procure 9TH
or authorities.
Friday, April 23.-Now, at this
time, comes the applicant, by
counsel, and in his own proper
person Is produced in court by
James l.. Barley, sheriff of Dallas
county, and also Il. G. Bower, district
attorney of the fourteenth district of
Texas, for the state, and said district
attorney presents to the court his mo-
ton to dismiss the writ issued herein,
and to remand and remit the applicant
to the power, custody and control
of Clifton Scott, agent of the
state of Mississippi, under
the warrant of the governor Of Texas,
for the reason that this application has
been adjudicated by court of COM
petent jurisdiction in this state, as is
shown by the exhibits annexed and at
tached to applicants petition. There
upon the applicants petition and.ex-
hibits attached thereto being read, it is
shown, among other things, that acre
tofore, on the day of the present
month, the Hon. Reuben A. Reeves,
one of the associate justices of the SUI
preme court OF Texas, had issued the
writ of habeas corpus, returnable be-
fore the honorable supreme court
of Texas, and that, in obedience
thereto, applicant did appear in per-
son before said court, and being
so before the court did decline
to further prosecute his said applica-
ton, whereupOn said supreme court
made and entered its judgment re-
the prisoner to the custody of
Clifton Scott, an agent of the state of
Mississippi, RENTING said prisoner to
5he power of said agentunder the order
Of the governor of Texas. 1t is also
shown that the grounds for the appli-
cation for the writ, issued by said asso-
,iate justice. were identically the same
hat are stated in the application for
he writ in this court.
Whereupon the court, after hearing
he argument of counsel and being
1lly advised in the premises, is of
,pinion:
First-That 1t is satisfactorily estab-
ished that Reuben A. Reeves, acting
Is associate justice of the supreme
,ourt of Texas, did issue the writ.
Second--That the supreme court of
VANS luNc VIC DCtbOh VI |
'efore 1t under said writ.
Third-That having said applicant
n the manner stated before the court,
t is made the duty of said court, by
Art. rs, % p. D., to examine the writ
nd papers thereto attached and into
he cause of the restraint or imprison-
nent of any person brought before it.
md by Art. 26, q p. d., the court
must remand the party into custody,
Omit him to bail or discharge him.
hat by Art. 20, 40 p. d., a person once
ischarged or admitted to bail shall
ot be again entitled to the writ, ex-
ept as is provided in Art. 26, AZ p. d.;
hat he shall state in such second APP
lication that since the hearing of his '
rst application, important testimony
as been obtained, which it was not in 4
is power to produce at his former {
caring.
1t is, therefore, the conclusion of
his court that, although the applicant
eclined to prosecute his writ before
lie supreme court, that no cause ap.
earring why he failed to prosecute it, a
lat the judgment Of said supreme '
,urt, having power under such cir C
and 1t being made its du- o
by law to grant such relief as the APP i
icant should be entitled to, and the ii
oplicant failing to permit said court to s
ant him relief to pass upon the mer- G
Of his application, that the judg- G
ent Of said supreme court Is final and