The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1895-11-22
So Says The Court of Appeals IN the Case
Of The Lunenhurg Prisoners.
JUDGE WELLFORD ERRED IN THE MATTER
Judge Orgnin's victory-Another Pro-
cess to BE Adopted Before the
Prisoners Can BE Gotten From the
Custody of Judge wellford-The
Habens Corpus Writ 10 be Dissolved

Hlchmond, va, Nov. 21.-The Supreme
Court of Appeals to-day refused the ap-
plication of Judge Mann and Mr. South
all, the legal representative Of the coun-
ty of Lunenburg, for u writ of manda-
mus to compel the Sergeant of the city
of Richmond to deliver the Lunenburg
prisoners, alleged Pollard murderers, to
the Sheriff of Lunenburg to be taken
back to that county.
The Court intimated, however, that
Judge Wexford, of the Circuit Court,
erred In granting the writ OF habeaS
corpus In the case.
The opinion of the Court was by Judge
buchanan and defines the function Of
the judiciary and executive
After statement OF the case Judge
Buchanan says
The respondent I'm his answer to the
rule to show cause why the mandamus
prayed for shall not be awarded against
him. places his refusal TO obey the
order of the County Court and the de-
mand of the Sheriff upon three grounds
The first of these grounds Is, that
the Governor of The Commonwealth or
dered him not to deliver the prisoners
TO the Sheriff as directed by the County
Court.
The functions of the various parts
OF our government are thoroughly sepa-
rated ana distinctly assigned to the prin-
cipal branches OF it-viz: The legisla-
tive, the executive and the judiciary
which, within their respective depart
ments, are equal and coordinate.
II dIS tHlIIS Is :cH eNlQent IN the
structure and organization of our
Government II is that the executive
has no power to interfere with the ju-
.ticiary III the performance OF its duties.
II the County Court of Lunenburg or its
Judge committed error in making the
order In question. the remedy was in
the courts. We find nothing in the Cor
stitution or laws of the State which au-
thorizes the Governor 10 direct the
Keeper of the jail TO disobey the order
ttrf LIT. l1l,,
without authority furnishes no legal
answer to the rule, and shows no cause
why the mandamus prayed for should
not be awarded.
Tile respondent assigns as further
reason for his action in refusing TO obey
the order of the County Court the fact
that writ of error and Supersrdeas had
been awarded each of the prisoners by
this court, the effect of which was to
transfer each of the cases from the
County Court to this court and TO take
from that court the power to enter any
such order therein. whereby the rights
ana persons of the prisoners were in
any way affected or TO change their
cohdition status or custody from what
IL was when the writ of error and super
SedeaS were awarded, and that he was
advised that the petition had been
lorDidden by the Court to do anything
IN the execution of the Judgment or or
ger oil mat court. or to exercise author
;ty, control or power over their boijes
until the matters involved in the said
wits or error shall have been deter
mined by this court
1t is unnecessary To 90 into +hi.
question of what was the effect of tbe
Wits or error and supersedeas award
sd by this court upon the rights and
duties OF the County Court. and the
sheriff of Lunenburr county f,,rthcr
than to say that their effect was not
10 deprive that court OF the power and
lne duty OF entering such orders as
lulsnt be necessary for the safe-keeping
oi tne prisoners. and having the right
10 make such orders under certain
circumstances. 1t was not within the
province of the respondent, the Keen
er OF the jail of that county to question
the power of that Court to make such
orders as 1t might deem proper I'm the
premises in the discharge of its dutv
1t was his duty to obey it's orders and
10 deliver the prisoners to the sheriff
OF the county as directed. If the pris-
oners themselves questioned the power
OF the County Court to make the order
mat was made, and wished to prevent
Its execution they had the right to
nave that question determined by the
courts by resorting to the proceedings
In such cases.
4, spondent bases his refusal to obey tho
order OF the county court Is that after
the Governor had ordered him not TO
aeliver the prisoners to the sheriff of
county ne was required by
the Judge of the Circuit Court OF tho
CITY of Richmond to produce the bodies
or the prisoners before him and that
he now holds them subject to his order,
and files with his answer a copy of the
proceedings before the judge of that
court In the habcas corpus case
Ihe petition of the prisoners in that
case, upon which the writ of habeas
corpus was issued does not allege facts
which show that they were detained
without lawful authority nor does II
allege that they SO determined On the
contrary they alleEe in their petition
that they were at that time in the law
full custody of the keeper of the jail
Of the city of Richmond, but express
grave apprehension that the keeper of
the jail would deliver them to the
sheriff OF Lunenburg county In obe-
dence to the order of the county court.
The fear that their custodian might
deliver them to the sheriff OF Lunen-
burg county and thus In their view
place them in Illegal custody. furnished
no sufficient ground for awarding the
writ. The writ of habeas corpus does
not issue as OF course to every one I'm
prisoned or detained who lmagincs
himself or another entitled to It's bene-
fits Though the writ is writ Of right,
Continued on Fifth Page.)