The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1880-03-17

The Supreme Court Annuls Judge
Rogers's Order Admitting
Him IN Rail

i We publish In full the following decision
the Supreme Court. rendered yesterday b.
Chief Justice Manning. on what - known Al
/ the Won Uttrtoh case. ON account OF It's touch
Inc upon some interesting points Of law:
NO. 7BAs-THE STATE, Elk REL NJ. ). sHEEHAN. va
| JUDGE or THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT.
The relator. sheehan, Il the recorder q thu
| First Recorders Court In this city. One Huge
Won Ullrioh was arrested by his warrant 49,
henrietta Won Uilrieh.. charsin1 him Wifi
with deadly weapon. With the intent 70 com.
eighth Of this month. and II appears fr ON the
recorders statement that on the eleventh VII.
rich was arraiRnad before HIN and pleaded moi
The recorder had no authority g arraign The
prisoner, nor was the latter OBLIGED to enter
He ers e s ee
titled e ball and no hsd h4ed the seventeenth
ns asy ef Sensdsns anneS e III uare
Of tho Fifth District court lor writ q ha5.ss
corpus and fer On order admitting him TO ball
prayed from this court writ o. sevtiora,i to
the Fiftk District Court. In order that their va
w W. have espis,ned heretoior the nature and
could not be invoked under previous. copstitu-
Code dle' OF Practice state OK rel. Scale W. Re-
oorder. 30 annual. 40. II IL not unlikely that
decision suggested the Importance OF confer ,t.
" means of which revisory power could DO *
ereised over the inferior courts. Oonst 1872.
u eoSrt e @ ess
Inferior tribunals Ia which no appeal would lie
:, went ah Into So effect court has BEEN with
Tribunals n easss wherein no appeal lles: That
dormant until tho new constitution vltallzed II.
BY the act OF 1852 a recorder OF New Orleans
has full power % inquire Into and determine
under, criminal charge. is or Is not entitled e
be bailed tSees. acts 1852. p. 2l0l The respond
emit assumes that since district Judges have we
Instance Of oil persons In actual custody IN
their respective districts tConst. 1872 art llsl.
therefore he had authority 70 entertain the np.
e Issue e adiadse that bah should be
nssns a. nH 1 10 q n s y rss .n
well ~ one having coenisance only OF the mr.
rest Of criminals, their commitment aud their
would have 'Rn IL % nVadea 1t nn
before or during trial and before verdict. and
have the prisoner taken from its custody. Con-
So"a d soar orleans the
ont time. and treating the. present case 40 II
article l1s were now. operative We do not think
thas contsrrsd On him. ID criminal ins inv
ton which the recorder had authority to make,
and was making. Interminable confusion and
constantly recurring con lict. would ensue from
Objection ID made to the want Of interest OF
the reator In the subject matter, He ts not
without interest In maintaining the Legitimate
jurisdiction ot bis. court over question. the
and the district attorney. who is the represen-
tatiye OF the State. informed us At the bar that
he obiected to the granting the writ BY tho re-
spondent when there was no question 81 the
form and Regularity OF the mittimus
that the recorder had not authority to proceed
as he was proceeding. or that he was not COM
petent % determine whether the prisoner
should be bailed. The bare question presented
wri,s Of habeas corpus o district Judge can In
terfere with a recorder while exercising iuris-
diction oonfded to him In determining whether
given offense IL bailable. We are OF opinion
Il 10 not difiicult to conceive Of cases where
the Investigation OK determination OF the bail
able or non. batlable quality OF the crime might
be unreasonably postponed; and the tmprison-
prolonged pending such investigation. In
such case prisoneris not remideless. He Inns
the right to apply to this court for relief
H. q es
ercise and enforce that supervision over the In
fertor tribunals which the new constitution has
accorded to It.
81 s Dsra oon1 ersnns
the habeas corpus and fixing the amount OF the
bail bond are set aside. and that the recorder.
the relator. proceed to ascertain and determine
sSsssed s nf The
Or the bail bond. and that the prohibition here
tofore made herein Is perpetuated at the re-
spondent's costs.