The herald., 1894-12-09
FIGHTING FOR LIBERTY.
Failing on appeal, the Maidon ado Br
there Try Habsas Corpus.

Failing on appeal, the sldon ado Bro.
there Try Habsss Corpus.
Two brothers. named respectively
Victor and Francisco Maldonado, were
convicted in department. one OF the SUI
perior court, in 1898. Of having plac ed
an obstruction on the railroad track OF
the Los Angeles Terminal road at Pasa-
dera, and received sentence OF five
years. imprisonment at San Quentin.
Since the date OF sentence various efforts
have been made to obtain the release OF
the defendants, aud in the habess COR
pus proceedings instituted in departs
ment four, Judge Van Dyke yesterday
handed down the following opinion,
which again upbolds the legality Of the
conviction: "The prisoners are charged
in the information with the commission
Of . felony, committed in October, 1898,
in that thoy did unlawfully, wilfully.
wickedly, maliciously and feloniously
put, place and lay on the railroad track
Of the Los Angeles Terminal Railway
company certain ohstructions. to-wlt. q
number OF large and heavy stones and
and a large, long and heavy piece of
timber, with the intent to derail cor.
tain passenger train then and their
running from the town of Pasadena in
said county OF Los Angeles to the city OF
Los Angeles.
''The verdict OF the jury on this infor-
nation is as follows: We, the jury in
the above entitled action, find tho de-
.endants guilty of having maliciously
placed an obstruction upon the track OF
the railroad mentioned in the iniorma-
tion, but that they did not intend
thereby to derail the train.'
ION this verdict this court, depart.
ment one. in which they were tried.
passed judgment OF conviction against
each OF the petitioners. defendants in
said action, and sentenced them to inn
prisonment in the state prison at San
Quentin for term of five years. The
petitioners appealed to the supreme
court but the appeal was dismissed,
thereby affirming the judgment OF the
lower court.
1T is alleged, however. in their petit
tion that the appeal was Inadvertently
acted upon before their counsel had an
opportunity to file their points and au>
thorities. Petitioners state. however,
that they subsequently applied to tho
supreme court tor writ OF habeas
corpus, but that said court refused to |
grant said writ upon the ground that
the granting of the said writ would bs Q |
reversal OF their own Judgment
The claim on the part OF the petit |!
TONERS that they were proceeded against |
under the new section 2l8 of the penal |
code. passed March 81, 1891, relating to
train wrecking and the punishment
thereof.
49, !. The Penal Code has always
contained provision against malicious
injury to railroads. bridges, highways,
and so forth. it provides that every per-
son who maliceously removes, displaces.
Injuries, or destroys any part OF any rail.
road, etc.. or places any obstruction mp.
on the rails or track Of any railroad > =
is punishable by imprisonment In the
state prison. not exceeding five years.
or in the county Jail, not less than six
months" (P. @. 587).
THE frequent wrecking and robbing
of trains throughout tho country secm
to demand q moro vigorous provision in
reference to the punishment of the
same, hence the passage of the act of
1891 against train-wrecking already re-
ferred to. This new section. however.
does not repeal the prior provision Of
the penal code.
"The verdict of the jury 1t will be
seen did not convict the defendants OF
tuo CIfuue uopiRuatou III buo now boCtlUu
11S in reference to train wrccking, but
did convict them OF the crime desig-
mated in the old provision of the Penal
Code. towit: 'Msliciously placing OBJ
upon the rails or track of Q
railroad
AFTER quoting from sections 1155,
1859, Penal Code, the court concludes as
follows: am Of the opinion that fair
and reasonable Interpretation Of the two
provisions of the Penal Code in question
is that the offense of maliciously plac-
ing distractions upon the rails or track
OF any railroad mentioned in the old
section 10 necessarily included in the
unlawful placing of any obstruction on
the track OF any railroad with the inten.
ton OF derailing any train-ths higher
otense designated in the new section.
The information, by its terms, also in
cludes both offences and 1t results that
the court had jurisdiction to pass the
sen tence OF conviction in question.
THE petitioners, therefore. are legal