The Tombstone epitaph., 1882-02-20
THE EARr-HoLIA9< CASE.
Application for yy-it of IIabea
 COrpus before u ge f.ucns.

The hearing of the application for writ of habeas corpus in the case of Wyatt and Morgan Earp and J. II. Holiday was had before Judge Lucas in the District court room at 10;15 o'clock yesterday morning
 Mir Herring, the counsel for the defense, asked for the writ of return that it might be examined, and sad writ was produced from the deputy.sheriff.
 MT. Robinson, in behalf of the prosecu- tion, submitted to the court the question that the judge had been witness in a for. mer examination of the same case, and hence disqualified to act in the matter.
 The court said, while it would be plea. sant task to avoid hearing the question now to be determined, yet he considered that should he decide not to hear the case before him it would be neglecting an i'm. portant duty. Hence the grounds of the question were not considered we'll taken by the court.
 The counsel for the defense presented denial that the officer who had issued the warrant for the arrest of the parties above named was justice of the peace, and as- serting that saId justice had never been elected to that office.
 MT. Robinson objected to the denial, ar- guing that justice of the peace did not need to be elected so long as he had right to his office from other authority, and moved that if ho efriolya- o,.
 After further discussion it was acceded by both counsel that J. B. Smith was ap pointed by the board of supervisors and held his authority from them.
 Mr Herring argued that the appointing of fjustices of the peace was provided for by the legislature, and consequently the ap- pointment by the board was illegal.
 Ben Goodrich, Esq, for the prosecution, held that the law quoted by the defense was not good, as later act passed repeal- ed it, and read sections specifying the ap- pointment of justices of the peace in an other manner, or by the board of supervi- sors.
 The defense considered that the two sec. tions read must be considered togetber hence both were in full force.
 The court, however, sustained the return on the ground that the appointment of said justice of the peace was legal accord. ing to law, as the act read by the defense was good only so tar as it did not conflict with the latter act.
 The return as issued by J. B. Smith was, read.
 It was held by the defense that these. same gentlemen had been once acquitted by jury and in legal court; that all the evidence had been before that jury; that their lives were now to be imperiled: that thls proceeding was secret business and hence that the rearrest was unwarranted.
 The court decided that as the warrant did not show these matters once to have been settled, and that as It called for an examination before the officer who issued the warrant, for crime for which they had apparently never been called to ac- count, notwithstanding his own personal desire to grant relief to the gentlemen, still he had no right to go behind the return and to interfere in the matter, as it was altogether out of his jurisdiction; he was sorry that the hardship could not be avoid ed, but considered 1t would be violating a law to grant the writ, and remanded the applicants to the custody of the sheriff.