Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-12-11
WIRTH AND WEBB.
NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE GREAT
"HOSSv TRADE.

Corpus neutrality-suspicious. Made by the
Attorneys--The Case Continued. Wirth in
the Meantime Being Consigned to the
Custody of sheriff King.
The habeas corpus case in which Leopold
With is petitioner, for release from the Gus
tody of A. r. Russell, sheriff of Polk coun-
ty, set for hearing in chambers, before Judge
Wikin, Yesterday, at o'clock, was presented
at o'clock P. NJ.
The petitioner appeared by Messrs. Erwin
and Warner, and Sheriff Russell's claims
were committed to the charge Of Messrs G.
D. O'Brien, j. E. O'Brien and Ed. Rollins
head.
The right to the custody Of Wirth was
presented by Mr.. Hollinshead. He claimed
that he was lawfully held, and by the right
of warrant duly and legally issued because
of the commission of q felony. The court
issuing the warrant had jurisdiction, and the
whole affair was regular in every respect, and
the warrant was executed by legal officer of
the county.
In the discharge of his duty, Sheriff Russell
arrested Wirth, and was legally proceeding
to convey him to the court which issued the
warrant, and that before that court alone
could Wirth be allowed to give bail. Coun-
sci claimed that all the forms of law having
been regularly and duly complied with, that
Sheriff A. r. Russell was entitled to the GUS
tody of his prisoner, With.
Mr.. Erwin, on the part Of the petitioner,
stated that it was their intention to traverse
the whole proceedings, and that he would
have to ask the indulgence Of the court to
make out this traverse. He conceded that
on the face the whole affair appeared regu-
lar. But the traverse would present a series
Of fact which would show that the sheriff was
not acting III accordance with law, or in the
legal discharge of his official duties.
Mr.. Warner Supplemented his colleagues
remarks by stating that the statute required
detailed and minute inquiry into all the
facts connected with case of this kind, no
matter what legal instrument, or even if
commitment detained the petitioner. Coun-
sci then stated in detail ''the horse-trade'
case between Webb and Wirth as heretofore
presented in the GLOBE.
Counsel declared that the horse which
Wirth is alleged to have stolen in Polk
Wirth was accompanied by a constable at
the time. Counsel intimated that it was a
conspiracy on Webb's part to take With
out of the way pending an action in the
municipal court here, in which Wirth was
principal witness against Webb. AS
to Sheriff Russell, counsel showed that
he had attempted to carry off
Wirth by an unusual route and in a buggy to
Crookston. 1t was part and parcel of the
whole conspiracy. The apparent evidence
was that the warrant had been gotten here,
sent up to Polk county in blank, and there
had been filled out. Counsel contended all
the minutiae should be inquired into, and
that it would require some time to make an
swer to the presentation of the
sheriff. During this time he pro-
posed that With be remanded to the
custody from which he came, and that he be
released on bail, pending the inquiry on the
habeas corpus case.
Mr.. Hollinshead presented his statement
of facts. The main point being that the
horse taken by With in Polk county was
not one of Webb's mortgaged horses, but
did belong to another party by the name of
Stewart. And for taking this horse, warrant
was sworn out against linn, With, and he
was arrested on it, And there was no going
back of the warrant, and the prisoner should
be remanded to the custody of Sheriff Rus
sell.
Mr.. Erwin further reviewed the matter by
stating that the alleged larceny of Webb
was continued offense to all the counties
through which he passed. That the Of
tense was as complete in this county
as anywhere else, and that cognizance
of the alleged crime could be taken judicial
ly here just as we'll as anywhere else. The
action Of Sheriff Russell in the arrest and
the transportation Of Wirth was character
lied as unusual and suspicious. AS to the
warrant. it was made out here and sent to
Polk county,
Mr.. Hollinshead admitted it.
Mr.. Erwin, continuing said that owing to
the peculiarities and suspicion connected
with the case, postponement should be grant
ed in order to give an opportunity for full
answer and inquiry.
The court stated that on inquiry he did
not consider that the question of the guilt or
innocence of the prisoner should be, or
would be decided. Again, as to the abuse of
the process of the law in arresting the
prisoner pending case in the municipal
court, the court did not feel called upon to
pass any decision. 1t was within the prov
ince of that court to protect itself. The
court thought the case one of such nature
that the ends of justice would be subserved
by granting the relator the full opportunity
of making complete answer to the return.
Therefore the court granted postponement
OF the case until to-day at 10 O'Clock A. M.
The question of whose custody was Wirth
to be remanded came up. Sheriff Russell's
counsel claimed that he, Wirth, should be
given into his, Russell's custody.
Mr.. Erwin urged that Wirth be admitted
to bail, and quoted statutory provisions to
show it was within the discretion Of the court
to admit the relator to bail.
The court decided the matter by commit
ting Wirth to the custody of Sheriff King,
of Ramsey county.
THE TRAVERSE.
Last night Messrs. Erwin and Warner,
counsel for the relator With, prepared the
traverse, or reply, to the return. 1t en-
bodied in substance the facts set forth above
in the remarks of counsel for relator. Stress
is laid upon the alleged fact that the arrest
of Wirth was part of a conspiracy to remove
him pending criminal action against Webb;
that the manner of his removal was such as
to lead to the suspicion that he, Wirth, was
to be kidnapped. The fact that the warrant
was made out here, as admitted, and for
Warueu 10 L ok county, Is SGaleu as evidence |
of the conspiracy to deprive With of his
liberty. AS result the legal issue is pre-
sented to the court.
First-Can the judge, under the writ, en-
quire into the guilt of Wirth as collateral
proposition, which the relator claims to be
secondary, under the allegations of con-
spiracy raised in the petition for the writ?
Second Can the judge allow bail, in case
he refuses to entertain the proof offered in
the first issue as stated.