Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-07-27
REASONS WHY.
The Supreme Court Refuses to Order q
Chinese Kidnaper Discharged,

The Supreme Court Refuses to Order a
Chinese Kidnaper Discharged.
The following opinion of the Supreme
Court was filed in the office of ]. s. Will
Jams, Clerk of the Sacramento District, yes
: terday:
Ex parte Sternes.-This is a proceeding
upon habeas corpus. 1t appears from the
petition upon which the order for the issu-
ance OF the writ was based that in April.
1883. the petitioner. George II. Sternes.
was Deputy Sheriff of Yuba county; hat a
| warrant for the arrest of one All Fong, is
sued by the Superior Courtof said COUNTY.
was placed in his hands for service, and
that he executed the writ by arresting All
Fong IN Nevada county and bringing him
before the Superior Court of Yuba
county at Marysville. 1t is further
alleged in the petition that said
An Fong thereafter procured warrant TO
De issued by Justice of the Peace of Ne
rada county, commanding the arrest of pe-
utioner on charge of kidnapiDg: and that,
oeing arrested upon such warrant and
taken before said Justice of the Peace,
petitioner had an examination, and upon
proof OF said arrest of All Fong under said
warrant issued by the Superior Court of
fuoa county, and the delivery of the BODY
OF Alb Fong to said Court in Marysyille,
and without other proof of the commits
sion OF any otfense, said Justice made an
order holding the petitioner to answer
upon said charge of kidnapping, and there
upon committed him TO the custody of
George Lord, Sheriff of Nevada county.
This petition was filed September 26,
1898. and on the same day the late Chief
justice made an order directing the issu-
ance of the writ of habeas corpus as
nTaVpn 10 baf IL
October pa following, and ordered that
pending the hearing the petitioner be ad-
mitted to bail
The Court, sitting in bank-five Justices
present, including the late Chief Justice
proceeded with the hearing. When, how
ever, after the final submission of the cause
1t was taken up for decision, it was found
that on account of the retirement of the
late Chief Justice =" the concurrence of four
Justices present at the hearing which is
made by the Constitution essential to a
judgment of this Court in bank-could not
be obtained, and il became necessary to set
aside the previous order of submission and
TO direct a rehearing. This having been
done, counsel have again submitted the
case upon the briefs already filed.
The Supreme Court says that the condi-
ton of the cause is decidedly anomalous.
1t is an original proceeding in this Court
and evidence is necessary in support of the
allegations of the petition in order to make
out the ground upon which the petitioner
claims his discharge At all events the
case was submitted at the time and has
been re-submitted without the evidence
upon which alone we could order the peti.
toners discharge. For this reason, there
fore, and without deciding any other ques-
ton presented by the record, we feel con-
strained to remand the prisoner
Elk parte Sternes and ex parte Lee
These cases are like the above, and upon
the authority of that case the petitioners
are remanded