The comet. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1877-1882, 1879-12-13
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS,
Reported Weekly by J. w. Jenkins.
Attorney at Law.
OCTOBER TERM, 1879.


he E.g Parte
- j. Il. BRIDEWELL. I
a. Appeal from the decision of Hol
st U. M. Young, Judge.
o. This is an an appeal from a decisio
n III case of habeas corpus refusing t
is admit appellant to bail.
IS The bond required by the judgmen
e OF the Supreme Court in this cas-
II formerly before the court on habea
u corpus was not given, but appellen
c remained in custody until the Gran,
jury found an indictment against hin
1 Tor murder, when he petitioned for the
present writ, averring that, having
!, been adJudged by the Supreme Court
| on all the proof, entitled to bail, the
question of his right was res ad;udicuta.
The District Attorney opposed his
enlargement on the mandate of tbo
OF Supreme Court because he was pre-
pared to adduce additional facts which
did not exist at the time of hearino
under the first writ, and, notwith-
standing the objection of counsel for
petitioner, the evidence mentioned in
The opinion, as well as the testimony
on the former trial, was introduced.
CAMPBELL, j.
Held
The Judgment of this Court admit
tihg. the appellant to bail was con-
elusive OF his right to bail in the state
or case which then existed but NOT
OF his right to bail on new state
oI Iacts since occrruing and presenting
case different from that existing .
Wheh the former application was made, I
Ouf statute, Sl413 of the Code, makes
the Judgment rendered on the trial of
any WIFI OF habeas corpus bar to an
other habeas corpus '1to bring the
same matter again in question:" but
Ile concluslVeness of the judgment is
limited to the conditions existing at
the tlme, and does not preclude subse-
quent inquiry into new state of case
made, not by new evidence of form
cry existing state of case, but by sub
seq uehtly occurring facts which essen
Ilially vary the case, and make it not
.he same matter before adjudicated
MATTERS arising subsequently, to the
prior judgment may be investigated .
NEW, for they have never been decid
'd. All matters of fact which existed
md might have been litigated
n the former proceeding We're con- +
luded by it. WI L
The object of the section cited was
cconfine the applicant for the writ of
labeas cnrpus to one proceeding in
ne same state of case, and to secure n
nm the benefit of a judgment in L
us favor; in other words, to apply the
ne rule OF res adjWdtcata, as far as if
applicable to the Judgment on
ne trial of writ of habeas corpus.
18th the further provision that Der
N discharged by such Judgment
lall not be confined for the same
use, except by court of competent Al
The evil sought to be
medied by the statute was the rene
Elon OF proceedings by the writ of
IDEAS corpus as often as, Judge
uld be found to grant it, and the
NEEDY given in the denial of more mr.
an one writ of habeas corpus in the LII
me matter, with conclusiveness
ven to the judgment, both for and
alnst the relator, but subject to the
'ht OF court of competent iurisdic-
N to afterwards confine for the same
use person discharged on habeas
'pus. A case, so far as the right to a.
il is concerned, may be a varying Rb asS'
e, III which the party at one time Inst
III one state of case NAV not he prof
titled to bail and at another time and i Piet
Il different state of case NAV be for c
titled to it; while the person is the it is
ne, and the offense with which he NJ.
charged is the same, a change of -So,I
essentially varying the @-e-'
and occurring after Judgment
The trial of writ of habeas corpus.
Sents another matter for adiudica-
|. 1t Is true the question is the m-v.
lie, viz: " Shall the relator have
:" but it is new matter, because -
ing out of new condition of
gs, which presents the question
ther now, in this new coniuncture.
prisoner is entitled to bail.
= parte Patterson, MSS. FE
erclen V. The People, % Wen
"a.
ople V Mercien, Hill, 500.
lie estoppel of a Judgment on trial
writ of habeas corpus operates re-
'calIy against and in favor of the
or, so far as to preclude inquiry -
Is to bar the prisoner from ON Char
ming bail upon the occurrence of Orler
V and different condition of things Davi
so as to entitle him to bail in a m-uu-
OF case different from that exist T 7
If bail is allowed by a
hitting magistrate, on an exami-
II, or by Judge on trial of a
OF habeas corpus, and subse-
tly an Indictment for murder is
and presented, and the prisoner
ested and held by virtue of pro-
III such indictment, a new and -
ent state of case is presented NJ
ng materially from that existing OIL
;, and open tOinvestigation upon
1T
t Is the case at bar. Since the
ication of this Court on his ap-
rom the judgment of the Circuit Ia
on writ trial of ofhabeas corpus
ut by him, the appellant has been
ed for murder by the Grand
II Warren county, and is held
that indictment. Additional
Ony, not produced on the first
the writ of habeas corpus, was zzUzs,
by the Judge on the hearing of wv
asent writ, and he refused bail. -
'e not prepared to saw that he sAah
in this, and his Judgment is
ID.
MARRIED.