Omaha daily bee., 1888-10-13
FIGHTING FOR HARRISON,
A Habeas Corpus Case With Multi.
tudinOus Points.

The petition OF Edward Harrison for a writ Of
habeas corpus was argued before Judge Croft
of the district court yesterday. Harrison was
arrested in this city two weeks ago on a tele-
gram from Arizona, saying he had forged
the name of Henry to a telegraphic money
order. The prisoners attorney held that the
information on which Harrison was arrested
was defective. 1t charged the prisoner with
having committed forgery in Arizona, but
did not al eye that he was charged in Ari-
IONA wiltshire crime. The information also
failed to allege that Harrison was unauthor-
lied to sign Henry's name, and failed to al
lege that he had obtained any money on the
order signed by him. The first allegation,
the attorney urged, was a formality specific.
ally required by the statute. The second
allegation was necessary to constitute a
charge of forgery. The attorney stated that
Harrison had been arrested OH q complaint
charging him with being a fugitive
from justice, but that subsequently a war
rant charging him with forgery in Arizona
county Jail, upon which warrant he is being
held. 1t is argued that a man cannot be ar
rested while already in the custody of the
law. Harrison should have been given his
liberty before being re-arrested. AS a mere
matter of fair play, 1.-THE boy should be
given a chance for his white alley,' a bit Of
metaphor that made the lawyers smile audi
bly,. The attorney also argued that Harrison
could not be held over four days, but did not
press the point, as the Judge discouraged that
construction of the law. The county attor-
ney argued in general terms that it was not
necessary to be as specific in a complaint
for arresting u prisoner as in an
indictment for his trial, and held
that his information against Harrison
was sufficient to hold a man wanted in an
other state, where all the specific allegations
would be made. He argued that the only
point for the court to consider was whether
Harrison had been detained a reasonable
length of time for the Arizona authorities
to get requisition papers and come for him,
The county attorney concluded: "The COM
plant, | admit, is not artistically drawn, nor
with intent to try the prisoner here, but 1t is
sufficient to hold him for the Arizona officers.
If the habeas corpus is granted, | will file an
other complaint. We can keep the prisoner
here, and we are going to do it. 1t will do
no good to discharge him" Judge Croft re-
served his decision till to-day.
The jury were unable to agree in the case
of James w. Peterson vs.. the Union Pacific
railway company, a suit for 81, $50 damages
for personal injuries. They were discharged
and the case continued.
In the case of Isaac R~ichenberg VS.. Will
lam Chamberlain, a suit for the possession of
two mules, the court gave a decree for the
plaintiff by consent.
In that of Diedrich Zimmerman vs.. Gustav
Haesnner, a suit for a plasterer's wages, the
jury gave the plaintiff a verdict for S14.75.
In the suit of David Il. Lohmes VS.. the
City of Omaha, a suit for $4,000 damages
for injuries resulting from a defective walk
on Mason street, the jury found for the city.
Judge Croft took up the suit of N. b. Fal-
coner against Jennie c.. Hornaby for Sl5S for
goods furnished.
Susan Bailey asks for a divorce from An
thony Bailey on the ground of drunkenness
and lack of support.
Judge Doane took up the case Of William
Mc!Iain VS.. Hugh Murphy, a suit to replevin
ten car loads of Sioux Falls stone.
The ejectment suit against William Barrett
! of Florence occupied Judge Hopewell's at
tention yesterday again.
The case Of Connell VS. Colgan was finished
before Judge Wakeley, and was taken under
advisement.