Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1885-06-17
THE MOONEY MATTER.
Argument on the Application FOR a
Writ of habeas Corpus,
Before the Supreme Court OF Appeals
Yesterday Afternoon---An Inter-
esting Point at Issue.

The John Mooney case was argued be-
fore the Supreme Court OF Appeals yester-
day atterr DON upon an application ior
writ of habeas corpus, there being quite
large attendance of legal gentlemen. Inc
prisoner Was represented oy Messrs' rem,
dleton and AInett, while Attorney GenefAi
Caldwell appeared for the State.
Nj. Pendleton addressed the court LOT
resrly an hour, holding in brief that the
prisoner was
ILLEGALLY HELD
in that the punishment meeted out was In
excess OF that authorized by the statute, and
hat, therefore, the sentence as whole was
void. He alluded TO the claim that would pro-
badly be made by counsel for the State, that
application for writ of error would be the
proper course TO pursue in this matter, and
be Id that il was not competent for any court
to revise sentence save that before which
the evidence WAS offered, and that the only
redress for bis client was q discharge and
restoration TO liberty.
Mr.. Caldwell began by saying that the
whole matter of the application tor writ
hinged upon the idea that, because OF the
claim that
PORTION OF THE SENTENCE
was erroneous, therefore the whole sentence
was void. He said there was no pretence
that the prisoner Was not lawfully held IN
custody. There could be no doubt of the
power OF the court below to order conhne-
ment for the term melted out in this case,
And if it be conceded that the fine an.
nexed to that i'm prisonment was imposed
without authority, it was hardly fair to ex-
pect or claim that the proper portion of the
sentence was vitisted by an i'm proper clause
annexed TO it. He cited numerous author
tiles to the effect that when a court, after
infictipg a proper punishment added there
10 further penalty in excess of that war
ranted by law, the latter clause of the sen.
tence only was void, and that the lawful
punishment was of
FULL POWER AND EFFECT.
He further claimed that the petition upon
which q writ was asked was insufficient in
hat it failed to properly set forth the facts
by a transcript of the record of the Court
below.
Mr.. Arnet took the ground that the petit
ton presented by the prisoner was all that
vas required. He claimed that the punish
ment was not a mere mistake of the court
below, or an erroneous view Of the require
ments of the statute, but it was an unlawful
and illegal sentence in that the court had
raj see ndedsi its authority, and it was there
fore void. In all the authorities he had ex.
AHMED there was but one case in which the
prisoner had not been discharged when the
sentence was illegal II the sentence had
oe,n specifically laid down by the law, and
he court below had made mistake and
sentenced the prisoner to punishment
oiber than that con emplated, then writ of
error might be
THE PROPER COURSE,
out where the punishment is discretionary,
and the court, in addition to the lawful pun.
isbment, has added one not contemplated,
then both were void, aud writ of hsbeas
corpus was the remedy Where the court
cen ipfict one or the other Of two sentences
ard yet gives both, the consolidated SEN
,ence IS void and the prisoner should be dis.
charged on hsbess corpus.
The case was then submitted, and Court
adjourned.