Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-09-28
THE SHEA HABEAS CORPUS.
Points in the Argument of the Prisoners
Counsel
Why He Claims That His Client Was
Denied a Fair Trial When He
Was Convicted.

| Denied u Fair Trial When He
Was Convicted.
The hearing of the application of John
Shea for release from the work house on
writ Of habeas corpus was resumed before
Judge Cole this morning, Mr.. VIM. A. Cook
continuing his argument on behalf of Shea.
After The Stars report of the case closed
yesterday Mr.. Cook discussed the second
ground of the petition, claiming that Shea
| should not have been tried on an informa-
! ton, contending that the prescribed pun
ishment made the offense an Infamous one,
ana therefore required formal indictment.
Inc Information was attacked on the
ground that 1t was general, failing to spe-
cihcally designate the particular kind of
liquors which Shea was charged with sell
Ing without license. Because 1t was gen.
eral Mr.. Cook claimed that the defendant
was not particularly informed of the char
acter Of the charge against him. There
fore said Mr. Cook. he was deprived of the
| fair trial which the Constitution guaran-
teeo. Although the commitment papers
might have been mere specific than the in
formation. they could not enlarge or change
the sentence prescribed by the law.
| An IncOmpreh cnsible Record.
But the record of the court was so vague
/
De learned from it. The record, remarked
Mr. Cook, read: mos in w. H." but the
aopreVlations were so vague that no foun-
uatlon Tor the defendants commitment to
the workhouse. They were mere HERO
slyphics amounting to really nothing.
| W. H." exclaimed Mr.. Cook, might
mean number of places other than that
really meant"
~ might mean, colonel" remarked Mr.
Inomas, six months in the White House"
1 fnr all l.
pied Mr.. Cook. tBut what was really
knows
Mr.. Cook, continuing contended that
there was no such person in law as the
lEtendenT of the work house." referred to
| IN the commitment papers, and that, there
fore. Shea was deprived of his liberty by
person unknown to and unauthorized by
law to receive and hold persons convicted
Of his alleged Cffe1se. or, indeed, of any
other offense Mr.. Cock next contended
that Shea'S alleged offenSe, conducting an
unlicensed bar, was not known to the law
| in force here.
But" exclaimed he 1.-The morbid opinions
/ of an eytemporized Justice prevented me
! from going into this or any other matter
during the trial, and the presiding, justice
/ even went 50 far as to threaten me with q
! heavy line If did not take my seat. But
/ Ii Is hardly necessary to state that even
| that dire threat failed to keep me down.
Could Not Examine the Jurors.
Shea was not able to secure an impartial
jury, said Mr.. Cook. for the court below
! refused to allow him to examine the jur-
ors
| did not the court in the Schneider muir
1 der case inquired Judge Cole. decide that
! such a thing could not be shown nor in
qured into by writ of habeas corpus?'
Not at all. your honor" replied Mr..
Cook, and besides, this case widely differs
| from the Schneider case"
Mr.. Cook then went on TO argue that the
denial OF any constitutional right of a de-
PENDANT could be shown and inquired into
! on writ of habeas corpus. Reading a num-
Der or authorities, which he claimed sus-
tanned that view, Mr.. Cook contended that
If the writ showed that Shea did not OBJ
tain an impartial jury, he should be re-
leased He then argued that the sentence
imposed upon Shea was illegal. in that 1t
imposed an additional Imprisonment in de-
fault Of the fine The act of March g. 1872
did not authorize any such penalty. He
imagined that the other side would en-
dcaNor to justify such additional morrison
ment by other acts. but in that they would
fail, for the court could impose no SEN
tence outside of the act under which the
charge was laid Hence, If the court in
imposing sentence, went outside of the
was invalid and Shea should either be
remanded for proper sentence or released
validity of Justice Mills AppOin tment
Mr.. Cook next attacked the validity of
the appointment of Samuel c. Mills and
Arson s. Taylor. justices Of the reace, as
Judges pro TEN or the Police Court during
the absence Of the permanent Judge Pre-
vious to the constitution of the Police Court
by the appointment of Two permanent
Judges, the law did authorize he Criminal
Court to appoint a justice Of the peace as
judge of the Police Court iurin, the alb
sence of the then single mcGlber of the
Police Court, but when the law made the
Police Court to consist of two permanent
judges the law authorizing the appoint
ment of an acting judge during the absence
Ia NOR H..
was repealed.
Replying to an inquiry by Judge Cole
Mr.. Cook denied that the law enlarged the
duties of justices of the peace when their
appointment as acting Judge of the Police
Court was authorized and made it lawful
to call upon them to perform such enlarged
judicial duties When the Police Court was
enlarged by the appointment of an addi-
tionai permanent judge Congress con-
templated the performance OF double du-
ties by enc of the two permanent Judges
during the absence of the other Con
gress never contemplated" remarked Mr..
Cook. chat both judges should bask In the
sun OF mountain or seashore at the same
time, or depart at the same time to in
dulge in sem-ccestial pleasures"
Mr.. Cook concluded his argument on be-
half of Shea just before recess with an
elaborate presentation of authorities in
support Of his contention that the court did,
on writ OF habeas corpus. possess the au-
thority to inquire into the jurisdiction of the
court below ard review the proceedings
there, and, If those proceedings were II.
legal or the court wanting in Jurisdiction,
could release or remand Shea for further
proceedings against him.
Mr.. Thomas for the District
After recess Mr.. S. r. Thomas responded
on behalf of the District He stated that
he would be brief in what he had to urge
and would not trespass upon the time and
patience of the court to the extent of his
brother, Cook. The one ever-present oh
ject of Shea's application for the issuance
OF the writ of habeas corpus was to secure
ends obtatnable through writ of error or
bill In quo werranto only. He then quoted
authorities to show that neither error dur
ing the trial nor in the Judgment could be
reviewed cured on habeas corpus. And
the authorities. he claimed applied equally
as well to IRREGULARITIES in the PROCEEDINGS
during and after trial and in the Judgment
An erroneous judgment could be cured by
the trial court, such court having the
power subsequently to enforce a lawful
judgment.
Decided ia the Cross Case
That decided by the United States
Supreme Court in the Cross case
Referring to the contention of Mr. Cook
that Judge Mills was not lawfully appoint
ed Mr.. Thomas said that Judge Mills was a
judge de facto. for the reason that he acted
with color of law at least and was attend
ed by the clerk of the court and seal of the