The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-11-22
Stp'ane Court Decides That They Are In
th Custody Of The Lunsnburs Court.
JUDGE B. R. WELLfORD SUBMITS.
lie Decides That lie Has No Authority 10
E"id the Prisoners, but Adjourns
Court Until This Morning to
Allow Counsel of the Negroes
to show AuthorIties-Nay
Return To-day.

county. TO the supreme Court Of Appeals
TO compel Captain Charles II. Epps. Ser
gchnt OF The city OF Richmond, 10 deliver
10 him the prisoners. Solomon Marablo,
Mary Abcnaihy. and Pokey Barnes, has
at last been rendered. Yesterday was
Opini0n-day with the Court of Appeals,
and Ia anticipation OF the handing down
of the opinion in the Luueuburg case, a
large number Of lawyers and others In
tercsled in the case completely filled the
courtroom The Luncnsurg authorities
were represented by Judge W. II. Mann.
OF NOttOWay. ana Mr. X. q. SOuthall,
Commonwealth attorney, OF Amelia
Courthouse. captain George j.. Wise ana
Captain Il. Il. GuisOn were present OF
counsel for the prisoners. Sherln Cardoza
Was not on hand, bat Judge Mann suDse-
Iuenuy informed me that ne would leave
LuncnDurs county that evening and ar
rive here eorly tn.s morning
The opinion IN the Lunenburg case was
tlc one before the last one TO be handed
down. 10 was read 10y Judge John -.
IIrNauan. VINO nad written 10, and 10 &c
cllDs lu every point raised by the re-
spoudeut in favor of the Luncnburg au-
ilOUuts. The court holds that the Gov
ernor had no rsnt TO- Interfere with the
order of tnc County Court OF LuuenDurs.
10 also holds tnat the awarding OF a
writ OF error and supersedeas oy this
court does not deprive the County Court
"A NsANAfAAN.iN- NA tiNf IfUN'l OF enter iiib
such orders as might be necessary for
lne safe-kecping OF the prisoners. The
court further holds that the action OF
tho judge of tho Circuit Court OF the
city OF Richmond was without juEisdic-
lion, but that, iuasmuCh as that judge
nas granted the writ of habeas corpus,
hia act IS not void. Ina view OF The fact,
however, that tho Judge of the Circuit
Court. us bis Judgment. had decided the
question Of Jurisdiction. 10 could only be
raised again by proceeding IN error.
aui for This reason the mandamus ap-
pied for b. refused.
OPINION on TIE COURT.
THE opinion. as read by Judge Bu-
Chanau. is as follows.
This IS am application Of the Sheriff of
Luncuourg county 20 this court Tor "a
mahuainns 20 compel the sergeant OF the
cit} OF richmond ana the keeper of its
iail 70 deliver 10 him the bodies of VIII
Siam Henry Marahie. P0key Barnes, and
Mary Auerndthy, now confined i'm such
jail.
II appears from tho record that the
prisoners named were convicted in the
County Court of LuuCnburg county at
it's July term last OF murder, and that at
the same term the court. for the safe
Keeping OF these prisoners. adopted the
jail of the city or Richmond as the jail
OF that county, and ordered the Sheriff
10 convey them 10 such jail. there to he
safely kept ana treated until brought
baik by the Sheriff for execution.
on tho llth day Of this month the Coun-
tao Sheriff 10 proceed at once 20 Rich
mo1d and require Of such laller the bodies
OF said MaraDle. Barnes and Abernathy,
ana IN the same order directed the keeper
Of ths Jail to deliver the bodies Of The
prisoners 70 the sheriff. Tho Sheriff, IN
obei-encc 70 that ORDER demanded me
bOults OF the prisoners OF tho respondent
TIE keeper Of the iail, who refused 20 de-
liFr- tncm TO him.
Ths respondent I'm his answer 30 the
rule 10 show cause why the mandamus
r.4f shall ltU awarded luIfnAt
him places biz refusal TO obey the order
Of the County Court and the demand OF
the sheriff up0n three grounds
ne FIRST OF these grounds is, that the
Cove rOr OF the Commonwealth ordered
D ~ not 10 deliver the prisoners 10 the
sheriff as directed by the County Court
10 pOWE no INTERFERE.
The functions of the various parts Of
our government are thoroughly stgaiat.
and distinctly assigned 60 the principal
branches of it-Viz., the legislative, the
executive. and the Judicial which win
lu their respective departments are equal
IL ANYTHING is sclf-evident in the struc-
fUrc ana organization OF our government
IL is that the Executive has no power 20
interfere with the judiciary I'm the per
foimauco OF its duties. II the County
court of Luutnburs or the Judge commit
ted error ln making the order ln question,
the remedy was in the courts. We iini
nothing u the Constitution or laws or tiie
state which authorized the Governor 10
direct the keeper or the lMi 10 dlsOpey the
order of the County Court, anu MS act,
being without authority, furnishes no lc-
gal answer 10 the RUE, ana SHOWS 40
cause why the mahdalnus pray IL ior
should not be awarded.
1ho respondent assigns as "a further Ifa-
son for his action in refusing TO opcy ne
order OF the County Court the tdct t"at
a writ of error and supcrsedcas had bren
awarded each of the prisoners by tniS
court the effect of which was TO trans
Ter each of the cases from the county
Court 10 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 al-
fccted as 10 change their condition, slalus'
or custody from what IL was when the
Wrifs of error and superSedcaS were
awarded. and that he was advised that
the petitioner had been forbidden py
this court to DO anything IN the execution
az The Judgment or order of that court, or
to exercise authority control or power
over their bodies until tho matter involved
in The said wriis OF error SHAH nave been
III is unnecessary 10 go into this question
of what WAS the effect OF tnC writs OF cf-
r0r and slpeiseltas awarded by tnls
court upon the rights and duties OF the
County Court and the sheriff OF Lunen-
.urg county. further than TO say mat
their effect was not 20 deprive mat court
of the power ANA the duty OF entering
neh orders a. might be- necessary for
tle safe-kceplug OF the prisoners nh
having the right 90 make orders, IN er
s. rfain circumstances. 10 Nds not With
ir lie nrnNtnce of the respondent the
-e..er of tna jain OF that county. 10
question the power OF that court TO make
-sch orders as 10 might deem proper
in the promises in the discharge OF rs
duty y was his i"ty 20 obey us orders
and 20 deliver the prisoners 20 tho sheriu
~ thee ounty as directed. II the prison.
ers themselves questioned the power OF
the County Court To make the order
tnat was made end wished 70 prevent
its execution. they had the right TO nave
that question determined by the courts
ar scsorung 10 the appropriate proceeu-
iurs ln such cases. .....,,
ORDER or THE GOVERNOR
Another ground upon which the iespon-
dent bases his refusal TO obey the order
OF the County Court. Is. that aftcr the
Governor bad ordered him not 10 deliver
the prisoners TO the sheriff of Lunenburg
col niy. hc was required by the Judge OF
The Circuit Court Of the city or Richmond
10 produce the bodies Of tho prisoners
before him. and that he now holds them
suhicc: 20 his order. and files with his
answer "A cory or the proceedings before
The mSse OF that court IN the habeas
Sibe petition OF the prisoners in that
case upon which the writ OF habeas cor
mrs WAS issued. does not aliege facts
which show that they were detained with
ON lawful authority. nor does IL alege
that they are so detained. or the con-
.rs,v thev allege In their petition that
my were AZ that time in the lawful
custodv OF the keeper Of the jail OF the
rif, ~ Richmond. l-t expeSs grave ap-
,rshouslop that the keeper OF the JAIL
would deliver them 10 the sherin on