The record-union., 1896-07-23
CAMPBELL TO Be RELEASED.
His Two Sentences Are Not to be
Consecutive.
Carroll Cook Wins His Habeas Corpus
Case in Judge Johnson's
Court.

| Carroll Cook the San Francisco law
yer, yesterday resumed his argument on
| the application of Peter Campbell, on
babeas corpus before Judge Johnson, for
diminution of his sentence to the
State Prison. Assistant District At
torney Jones appeared in opposition to
the application.
Campbell was convicted in 1890 in San
Francisco of burglary and sentenced by
| Judge J. Mem. Shafter to three years in
the State Prison, and a few days after
ward was convicted in another court of
| robbery and sentenced for ten years.
! Attorney Cook contended that, as he
was sentenced on one charge before he
was tried on the other, the sentences
Were concurrent, instead of consecutive,
and that on the expiration of the longer
| term Campbell would be entitled to
his liberty. He quoted at length from
authorities to prove his position, citing
number Of decisions as well as the
code
Assistant District Attorney Jones dis
puted this, and claimed that the SEN
tences, under the code, should be con-
secutive.
The court said, in relation to the pro-
vision of the code, that the term of i'm
prisonment began only on the delivery
of the prisoner to the Warden, and that
it was incorporated into the codes by
Code Commissioner Raymond when the
codes were revised. Judge Clark of
| this county had sentenced man named
Denny to one years Imprisonment at
| Folsom, but he appealed the case, and
as it was not pushed through the Su-
preme Court, by the time decision was
rendered affirming the decision of the
| lower court the term had expired. Judge
| Clark, in sentencing him, had set no time
for the sentence to begin, and as Denny
had obtained bail pending his appeal,
he never spent a day inside the prison
walls
| Judge Johnson said he did not think
a court had power to fix the time when
sentence should begin. The point
made by the District Attorney that as
| one sentence was for Folsom and the
other for San Quentin the sentence
| were necessarily consecutive, was well
taken, as both prisons are of the same
| grade and a part of the same State Sys-
/ tenn. TIL courts sentenced prisoners to
one or the other of the prisons merely as
a matter of convenience and according
to the direction of the Prison Directors.
He was strongly of the opinion that
the Judge who fixed the time from
which CamDbeAs sentence should run
exceeded his Jurisdiction, and that the
prisoner was entitled to his discharge.
He directed that an order to that effect
be entered.
| In 1877 Thomas PrimrSc~e was con-
victed of a felony burglary in Santa
| Clara County and sent to Folsom
Prison, but escaped in 1880. In 1885
he was convicted in San Benito County
and sent to San Quentin, where he was
identified as the escaped convict from
Folsom
| When his term expired at San Quen-
tin Warden Aull was on hand to take
| him back to Folsom to serve out the
uneXpired term for which he was orig
inally sent there, but Primrose, who is
an old and cunning CON-" claimed that
| his terms under the law had run con-
| currently. He secured the services of
Edward ]. Dwyer, a young lawyer of
this city, to sue out writ of habeas
corpus in his behalf.
Judge Van Fleet decided the point
well taken, and directed Warden Aull to
| discharge Primrose.
Up to that time Primrose's case was
the first one in which that point had
been raised, and Mr. Dwyer, who was
then just branching out in his law prac-
| tice received many congratulations on
| his victory