Arizona republican. [volume] (Phoenix, Ariz.) 1890-1930, 1894-01-31
SUPREME COURT,
Adjournment Taken to March
Seventh.
The Writ of Prohibition in the Casa
of Juana Walker VS.. Judge
Rouse is Denied.

An adjournment was taken in the gu
preme court yesterday to March 7. Sew
eral important cases were decided tn
most interesting of which, perhaps
was that of Juana Walker VS.. Distric
Court, second judicial district O. W
Rouse judge, an application for 81 wrl
OF prohibition. restraining Judge Rous,
from granting an appeal in the case O
the applicant against the brothers ano
sisters OF her father, John D. Walker
from the probate court of Pinal county
The writ was denied, the opinion being
rendered by Chief Justice Baker. The
opinion Is grounded on the circumstance
that the remedies offered by an appeaI
and on writ of error are adequate.
In the case of John D. Walker VS., A,
j. Doran, administrator, motion for 9
rehearing was granted. The appellant
was given fifteen days in which to file
and serve additional authorities and the
appellee was given fifteen DAYS more in
which to reply.
Similar entries were ordered in the
cases OF the Southern Pacific Railroad
company VS. VIM. McGlll; the Arizona
Lum Der company Va. William Mooney
and the San Pedro Cattle comuanv vs.
G. M. Williams.
A point of considerable interest in a
case was decided in which John Bowie
applied for writ of habeas corpus to
De released from imprisonment in the
Pima county Jail on judgment of JUS
tlce OF the Peace Culver. The question
raised was identical with that on which
Judge Rouse on November Is, 1893. re-
leased John 0. Dun bar from imprison-
ment on a judgment of Judge Sloan
lmprisoning him for contempt Of court
In the Boyle case the judgment
reads; ut Is ordered that the defend
ant be imprisoned in the common Jail
of the county for the term of ten DAYS.
and pay a fine of $40 or be imprisoned
until the fine is paid" The Dunba
judgment was precisely the same, with
the exception that the time of impris-
onment was sixty days instead Of ten
days, and the amount of the fine was
$500 instead of $40.
The point made by Mr.. J. G. Kellum.
attorney for the petitioner, was that the
Judgment was void in toto, because it
tailed to STATE the rate per day at which
the fine should be satified by the i'm
prlsonment, and that, therefore. the
Judgment amounted to an imprison-
ment for life. This is the same argu-
ment made by Ben. Goodrich and W.
d. Barnes In behalf of Dunbar. Mr..
kellum cited in support of his position
The case Of ex parte Kelley, e5 Cali
ornia, which was the case relied on bv
counsel for Dunbar and upon which
Judge Rouse based his decision in dis
charging Dunbar.
Aforementioned Heney in opposi-
ION to the granting of the writ urged
nat the prisoner must first serve out
en days before he would be entitled to
De released on habeas corpus, lust as
re urged in the Dunbar case that the
prisoner must first serve out the sixty
lays, even if the remainder Of the
Judgment was void and in support of |
his position he cited the late case of
n re Swan, decided by the supreme |
curt of the United States and in |
which the court says the prisoner "can-
lot be discharged on habeas corpus
Until he has performed so much of the
-Ne AAOAo VI 00i YOU Out ~ uuCu Oh the ]
entence as 1t was within the power of |
he court to impose"
The supreme court denied the writ I
Without leaving the bench to consult,
nd one OF the justices announced that
he ten days must first be served be-
Ore the court would consider any
Their points. Under this decision
lumbar would have been compelled to
erve out the sixty days before he
1ould have been entitled to be dis
harged on habeas corpus.
Decisions were also handed down in
he following cases: Salt River Valley
anal company VS.. P. K. Hickey, af-
rmed; Santa Fe, Prescott & Phoenix
abroad VS.. J. J. Disler, order of lower
ourt reversed and judge directed to
low appellee to receive money on de-
osit; board of regents of Territorial
University vs.. Mary Charlebois, af-
rmed; Santa Rita Land aud Mining
'mpany VS.. T. Lille Mercer, motion
n rehearing denied; Jackson county
ank VS.. @. F. Ainsworth, similar en-
y.