Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1890-08-25
ROBERT b. BULLIss RELEASED.
Judge Bradley Orders the Discharge
From Custody Of the Utah Inventor.

Judge Bradley Orders the Discharge
From Custody Of the Utah Inventor.
He REVIEWS THE HISTORY OF THE CASE AND
THE REMARKABLE CIRCUMSTANCES ATTENDING
IT, AND DECIDES THAT TIE PAPERS ARE DE-
FEcrrvR.
This morning Judge Bradley gave his de-
cision in the case Of Robert b Bulliss, who
sought his release under . writ Of habeas
corpus from the custody Of Hugh Turner. agent
Of the territory Of Utah. The decision directs
the discharge Of the petitioner. Mr.. Bulliss
was arrested here under q reQuisltion Of the
governor of Utah and placed in Gu tody Of
Turner. The prisoner while in Turner's
custody was locked up in the sixth police
precinct here, in the Alexandria police station,
in the fourth precinct station in this city and
in the Rockville Jail, from which prison he was
discharged by the jailer and Turner sought 10
take him. A petition being fled for a writ of
habeas corpus the case was heard last week,
Mr.. J. ]. Barker for the petitioner and Mr.. c.
NJ. Smith tor the respondent
THE DECISION
Judge Bradley said he had given attention
to the many interesting questions involved
The relator, Bulliss, he said. had fled the
petition, alleging that be was improperly and
illegally held, and fled affidavits in which
enough was set forth TO make up the def
ciencics In the petition. In substance IT is
charged that Turner instigated j. b. Francis
TO make the charge on which the requisition
was granted; that Francis, Holloway and
Turner had conspired 10 get Bulliss to Utah
for malicious purposes; that he ID had APP
pled to the Attorney General for funds TO
take the prisoner TO Utah, and that while hold
ing the warrant of extradition Turner unlaw-
fully held the prisoner here. The return
shows that the respondent, Turner, holds
the relator under authority Of q warrant of the
chief justice.
The QUESTIONS INVOLVED
are these: Are the papers sufficient; has the
authority been abused, and is the violGtor a
fugitive from justice? 1t appears Bulliss had
resided here since September, 1889, and he was
not in the ordinary sense of the word a
fugitive. The contention is made that the
questions had been passed upon by the chief
Justice. 1t Is apparent that the chief justice
had acted simply as an executive and not as a
judicial officer. In determining the question
whether he should be delivered il may have
been that some of these questions had been
passed upon by the chief justice, yet under a
writ Of habeas corpus such questions are
always open for judicial inquiry.
On this point Judge Bradley read a number
OF authorities and said there was no reason why
the questions could not be determined by him
and he regarded it his absolute duty to pass
upon them. He should first determine if the
papers sufficiently show that a crime has beeu
committed in Utah; secondly, whether Bulliss
is fugitive, and. thirdly, whether the process
had been abused-whether il was used for an
unlawful or a malicious purpose.
HAS CRIME BERN COMMITTED?
As to the first question, he said the first
essential and the demand of the execution of
state was that it should be accompanied by an
indictment or affidavit charging the person
with crime. Where an affidavit is used the
allegations should be more strictly set out
than in an Indictment 1t appeared to him
that stricter examination was required when
copy of an affidavit is used. In this case the
papers contain two afidavits of J. b. Francis
both bearing date July 81, 1890, one filed with
the United States commissioner>and the other
hled with the governor. One affidavit sets up
no offense on which he could hold the relator.
There are nowhere allegations that the repre-
sensations were made in Utah or that
the money was paid there. Ii
apparently made to show that such
charge was pending. There was an inference
was not enough. 1t should be distinctly set out
that he was in Utah at the time. 1t was
not the duty of the court to look at the warrant.
but 1t was his duty to look into the affidavit or
Indictment 1t is distinctly asserted that the
pretenses were made and money paid in SAT-
Lake City. In this it is charged the money
was paid September 49, 1889, and the repre-
sensations were that Bulliss had an invention
OF motive power: that for the consideration
Of $3.50 he would proceed to Washington. pro-
cure the patent and assign them an interest
The charge was of distinct representa-
tions which it is alleged were acted
upon September 10, 1889, and the dates
OF September ! and September 20
are also given. but it is not stated what rep
reservations were made in the days mentioned
rxh In ind
1t could not be that the representations on the
18th induced the payment of the money on the
18th. The paper was, therefore. defective and
insufficient. 1t might be said that the offense
was or the 18th, but it would not do, for il is
directly charged that the representations were
made on both the other days Here was a re-
pugnance sufficient to invalidate the affidavit
rs BULLIss FUGITIVE?
He then passed to the second question: Is
Bulliss fugitive from justioef Judge Bradley
read from ia U. s. 16l to show that the Judge
had the power and it was his duty to inquire as
whether the party was a fugitive. There is
no doubt but the offense is charged to have
been completed September l9. 1889. while
Buliiss left the 10th or 18th and re-
covered the money after his arrival
here in September, having telegraphed
to Francis for it several times before
II man constructvely commits an offense in
Utah can he be fugitive from justice from
that state II he happens to be found in some
other jurisdiction? After referring to author
ity the judge said the law was explicit that
the accused must be actually present in the
jurisdiction at the time the offense is charged
to have been committed. He read from an
Iowa case that fugitive was one who flies
from Justice, and it was difficult to understand
how one standing still can be fugitive. If a
man makes false pretenses In Utah and the
offense is completed elsewhere the party can
not be held as being constructively in Utah
that Bulliss was in Utah at the time. and by his
own testimony he was out of the Jurisdiction of
Utah at the time of the crime
WHETHER THE PROCESS HAS BEEN AHysrp.
On the question az to whether the process
has been abused the Judge said that be could
inquire il it had been used for Interior pur-
poses. He read from Church, 474: Spear 4ss
and 449 and other authorities and said il was
clear that judge had the right to inquire into
the conduct of the officer. What was the duty
of Turner after the prisoner was delivered to
him? 1t was the right OF Bulliss and the duty
of Turner to proceed to Utah. He IT } had no
right to do otherwise and good faith ought to
have been taken at every step. There was an
apparent want of frankness in the affdayts IN
which the requisition is based. The disingenu-
BUSINESS is apparent in the affidavit 1t states
that in pursuance of the agreement he was to
come to Washington, and then seeing
what effect the statement would have on the
charge of being a fugitive, the word WASH
ington' is erased and Ito procure a patent
is substituted. Where should he 20 for a patent
but to Washington. and he came here Septem-
Der 20, and has been here since. This man
Ill 49, 49,. A. III n.