The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-11-11
THE SUPREME COURT.
Decisions in an Alabama Claims Case, Kan
sas Liquor Case, and others.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 10-A decision was rem
dered by the Supreme Court of the United States
to-day, in the Alabama claim case of the Great
Western Insurance Company appellant, against
United States; appeal from the Court of Claims
This was suit brought by the insurance com
pany to recover $309,6 35, with interest, alleged
to be due it from the Geneva award fund, on &C
count of war risk taken by the appellant upon
vessels destroyed by Confederate cruisers The
Court of Claims dismissed the appellants petit
ton upon the ground that it had no jurisdiction.
This court af1irms that Judgment and holds that
the Court Of Claims was prohibited from taking
jurisdiction by express statute AS to the mer-
its of the controversy between the appellants
and the United States arising out of the Geneva
convention, this court declines to express any
opinion, for the reason that Especial tribunal
has been enacted for the determination Of such
questions.
A decision was also rendered in the case of the
County of Buena Vista against the Iowa Falls q
Sioux City Railroad Company, in error to the
Supreme Court of Iowa. This was suit
brought by the county to establish its equitable
title under the 'swamp-land act to y, OOO acres
of land within its limits, which is also claimed
and is legally held by the railroad company I'M
der congressional grant The questions pre-
sented here relate to the action OF the lower
State court in admitting certain evidence OBJ
5ected to by the defense and that action was
the Judgment of the latter in favor OF the rail-
road company is here affirmed.
A decision was also rendered in a case grow
ing out Of the prohibition law in Kansas, en-
titled John Foster County Attorney, of Saline
County, against the State of Kansas ex rel w
A. Johnston, Attorney general This was suit
brought by the Attorney general against Foster
ts f6fnove him from Office because he had neg
lected to prosecute persons guilty Of selling in
'toxicating liquors in the county, in violation OF
statute of the State known as the Prohlbtory
Liquor Law. The trial below by jury resulted
In verdict against the defendent and Judgment
thereon, removing him from office. He appealed
on the ground, first that the prohibitory liquor
law is unconstitutional, and second, that mas
much as proceedings against him were under
writ of quo warranto, which, in Kansas, was
criminal proceedings he was entitled to trial
IN accordance with the criminal code. This
court affirms the Judgment Of removal on the
ground that both questions which defendant
would raise in his own defense have already been
decided here against him, the first in Bartmeyer
vs. Iowa, IS Wall, 129; and Beer County vs.. Mas
sachusetts, 81 U. s., 25 and Indiana, in Ames VS..
Kansas, Ill U. S. 449
decision was also rendered in ex parte t.
Temple Crouch, petitioner upon motion for
leave to file a petition for a writ of habeas cor
pus This was an attempt to bring again before
this court in such a way as to obtain prompt
decision, the question of the receivability Of cou-
pons of Virginia State bonds in payment of State
taxes Crouch, the petitioner, insisted
upon paying his license tax in coupons,
which the revenue officers of the State declined
to receive. Crouch refused to make payment in
any other way, whereupon he was arrested and
held for trial by order of the Hastings court of
the city of Richmond, upon a charge of violating
the license law. He applied to this court for
writ Of habeas corpus upon the ground that he
was detained in custody by State court in VIC
1ation of the Constitution of the United States,
because the statute which prohibits revenue
officer from accepting coupons impairs the obj
cation or contract of the State to receive them,
and is on that account imperative and void by
reason of the provision of the federal Constitution
which precludes a State from passing such laws
This court holds that where prisoner is in Gus
tody of a State court of competent jurisdiction,
not Illegally asserted, he can not be taken from
that jurisdiction and discharged by a court of
the United States on writ Of habeaS corpus,
merely because he is not guilty of the ofenSe for
which he is held Here the right of the prisoner
to discharge depends alone upon the sufhclency
or his 0efE6Sa hoy apfGr that defense is sufii-
Gent or not is fo. to yaljurt which tries him to
determine If, in such determination, errors
are committed, they can only be corrected in the
appropriate form of proceeding for that purpose.
The Office of a writ of habeas corpus is
neither to correct an error nor to take q
prisoner away from the court which holds him
for trial for fear that if he remains there such
errors may be committed The motion of the
petitioner is therefore denied.
A decision also rendered by the court IN
the ex parte case of William L. Royal, petition
err This was motion for leave to file petit
ton for % writ of certiorari, and was another at
tempt to get before this court the question OF
the receivahility of the coupons Of Virginia
State bonds in payment of State taxes. This
court however, holds that it has no jurisdiction,
under the form Of appeal, writ of error, to re-
view a decision of the Circuit Court upon a writ
of habeas corpus in the case of person alleged
TO be restrained of his liberty in violation of the
constitution or any law or treaty by the United
States, The petition is therefore denied.