Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-11-01
THE CASE OF SHEA.
His Application for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus.
JUDGE COLES EXHAUSTIVE OPINION.
All the Contentious of the Petition
Carefully Reviewed.
IN 7 Z n II y
TDGE COLES EXHAUSTIVE OPINION.
THE EST DEN led,

As intimated in The Star several weeks
ago would be the case. Judge Cole this
morning denied the petition of John Shea,
the South Washington citizen now under
going a sentence In the workhouse upon a
second conviction Of selling liquor without
license. for a writ of habeas corpus; and,
unless the Court Of Appeals overrules Judge
Cole. Shea will not only have to serve out
his six months term, but will also have to
serve six months additional. unless he con-
cludes to pay the fine of 500, which fine
formed a part Of the sentence imposed upon
him in August last. Judge Coles decision
was awaited with considerable interest, and
is believed to effectually dispose Of the
many contentious in the case, which are
fully set out in the decision. The decision
Is as follows:
The Contentious Of Shea.
In the matter Of the petition of John Shea
for writ of habeas corpus. the petitioner
complains that he is unlawfully restrained
of his liberty by Walter H. Stoutenburgh.
the intendant of the Washington asylum,
by virtue Of a warrant Of commitment is
sued by authority of the Police Court Of
this District. A substantial copy of the
record of the proceedings Of the Police
Court in the case of the District Of Column
bia against Shea accompanies the petition,
by which it appears that he was tried be-
Sore jury in that court in August last
upon the charge of selling Intoxicating
liquors without a license, and found guilty
by the jury and sentenced by the court to
pay fine and also to be imprisoned in the
workhouse, a department of the Washing
ton asylum, for a period stated in the SEN
tence and commitment.
The allegations In the petition relied upon
to show that the Imprisonment is unlawful
are briefly First. that S. c. Mills, one Of
the justices of the peace of the District
who was presiding in the Police Court dur
Ing the trial and who pronounced the SEN
tence had no Jurisdiction or authority to
preside therein or to pronounce the judg-
ment: second, that the petitioner was de-
MED the constitutional right Of a trial by
an impartial jury; third, that he was de-
MED the constitutional right of being in
formed of the nature and cause Of the ac-
cusation against him: fourth. that the case
was submitted to the jury on erroneous IN
structions by the justice who presided at
the trial; fifth, that there was and is, no
sufficient record of the judgment in the
Police Court to authorize the issue of the
mittimus; sixth, that the sentence Is not
authorized by the statute by virtue OF which
the prosecution took place: seventh. that by
the mtttimus the petitioner Is committed to
the custody Of the supposed official who has
no legal existence. and eighth, that the
punishment prescribed by the statute may
be, and that imposed in this case actually
Is. Infamous, and the whole proceeding
against the defendant in the Police Court
Is void for want Of jurisdiction In that
court to try such an offense. the constitu-
ton requiring such offenses to be prosecut-
ed only upon presentment or an indictment
by a grand jury. none being provided for
In that court.
Proper Questions for Habeas Corpus.
In determining whether the petitioner is
entitled to the writ as prayed, it is import
ant to consider in the first place what ques-
ton is open and proper for consideration
upon habeas corpus; where, as in this case,
the petitioner has been convicted of an
offense, and is held upon the sentence pro-
nounced in pursuance of such conviction.
The powers and limitations upon habeas
corpus in such cases have been clearly de-
fined by the Supreme Court in numerous
cases. In re Coy, 121 U. s., 49,, the Ques-
ton was very fully considered and Mr..
Justice Miller, delivering the opinion Of the
court, quoting from a former case in that
court, uses this language: IF that court
(the one pronouncing sentence) had juris-
diction Of the party, and Of the offense for
which he was tried. and has not exceeded
its powers in the sentence which 1t pro-
nounced, this court can inquire no further"
Upon a close analysis OF all the cases in
the Supreme Court upon the subject 1t will
be found that the sentence thus quoted
contains the exact doctrines established
by that court, though in very terse Ian
guage. 1t is supposed and argued that the
Supreme Court in the subsequent case of
in re Hans Nielsen 131 L. s., 49, modified
the rule as above stated, but the decision
in that case will be found in harmony
with that rule, and not in contravention Of
it. That was the case in which the record
of the court in which the conviction was
had showed that the petitioner had been
tried, convicted and sentenced the second
time for the same offense. Mr.. Justice
Bradley, delivering the opinion of the court
In that case said that: "A party Is entitled
to a habeas corpus not merely where the
court Is without jurisdiction Of the cause
but where 1t has no constitutional author
ity or power to condemn the prisoner" The
Constitution provides in substance that a
person shall not be punished twice for the
same offense, and when the court attempted
to infict the second punishment in the