Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1897-01-02

the clerk in pursuance of law, that the
record sis not full and correct record Of
the proceedings had in said court upor
said date in said cause" in that the rec
ord failed to show the arraignment of the
defendants and their respective pleas OF
not guilty, it was ordered "that the said
proceedings be entered now upon the
records of the court in this cause as Of
the 23d day of April, 1895, according to
the facts thereof" and the arraignment
and pleas we're set forth in said order
This order, together with the order con
vening the special term at which 1t was
entered, having been returned to the su.
preme court of the territory, that court
on September "a, 1896, the cause coming
on to be heard on the rehearing, "and
upon the amended record" again affirm.
ed the Judgment and sentence of the dis.
trict court and fixed day of execution
46 Pac. Rep. 361. Thereupon the defend.
ants, plaintiffs in error, on the same day
filed petition in the supreme court of
the territory of New Mexico for writ of
habeas corpus, alleging, among other
things, that they were unlawfully re-
strained of their liberty pursuant to the
judgment of the district court of the first
judicial district of New Mexico sitting
within the county of Santa Fe, inasmuch
as the district court was without jurisdic-
tion to render the judgment, the verdict
und Judgment thereon being coram non
judice, because the special term Of the
district court at which they were render
ed overreached and contiicted with the
regular terms of the court; the record did
not show that defendants had been ar
raigned and the amendment was improp-
erly made; the judge of the fifth judicial
district court had no power or authority
to preside over the first judicial district
court, and that his acts, while SO presid-
ing, were absolutely null and void. The
writ of habeas corpus was issued, and on
consideration of the sheriff's return to
the writ, and petitioners answer thereto,
it was ordered that the writ be discharged
and the petitioners remanded to custody
to be dealt with in pursuance of the judg-
ment, conviction and sentence. From
this order petitioners prayed an appeal,
which was denied for reasons then stated.
46 Pac. Rep. 211. Subsequently an ap-
peal was allowed by one of the justices OF
this court.
Mr.. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the
opinion of the court:
This Is motion to dismiss the appeal
on the ground that appeals will not lie to
this court from final orders of the su-
preme courts of the territories on habeas
corpus; and motion in the alternative
to affirm the final order sought to be re-
viewed because so manifestly correct that
the appeal must be regarded as taken for
delay only.
In Cross Y. Burke, 146 U. s. 50, it was
held that we had no jurisdiction over
the judgments of the supreme
court of the District of Columbia in
this class of cases. The statutes in rela-
tion to habeas corpus we're there re-
viewed, and it is not necessary to 60 over
them again in detail.
By section 763 of the Revised Statutes
it was provided that an appeal to the
circuit court might be taken from deci-
sions on habeas corpus: Q) In the
case of any person alleged to be re-
of his liberty in violation of the
or any law or treaty of the
United States: (2) In the case of the
sub jects or citizens of foreign states,
when in custody, as herein set forth. By
section 764 an appeal from the circuit
court to this court might be taken in
''the cases described in the last clause of
the preceding section"
Section 7O5 of the Revised Statutes
read: "The fnal judgment or decree of
the eupreme court of the District of
Columb bia, in any case where the matter
in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds the
value of one thousand dollars, may be re.
examined and reversed or affirmed in the
supreme court of the United States, upon
writ of error or appeal, in the same man
ner and under the same regulations as are
provided in cases of writs of error on
Judgments, or appeals from DEGREES rem
dered in a circuit court"
Section 846 of the Revised Statutes OF
the District of Columbia was as follows:
''Any fiual judgment, order, or decree Of
the supreme court of the district may be
re-examined and reversed or affirmed in
the supreme court of the United States, |
upon writ of error or appeal, in the same
cases and in like manner as provided by
law in reference to the final judgments,
orders, and DEGREES of the circuit court of
the United States"
On February 25, 1879, an act was
passed which provided: "The final judg
ment or decree of the supreme court of
the District of Columbia in any case
" here the matter in dispute, exclusive of
costs, exceed the value of twenty-five
hundred dollars, may be re-sxamined and
reversed or affirmed in the supreme court
of the United States, upon writ of error
or appeal in the same manner and under
the same regulations as are provided in
cases of writs of error on judgments or
appeals from DEGREES rendered in a circuit
court" 20 Stat. 800, G. 80, SEQ. 4.
BY act of congress of March 8, 1885, (23
Stat. 437, Q. 353,) section 654 of the Re-
vised Statutes was SO amended as to re-
move the restriction to the second clause
of section 1853, and restore the appellate
Jurisdiction of this court from decisions
Of the circuit court in habeas corpus
cases as it had existed prior to the pass
age of the act of March ~, 1868. 15
Stat. "A, @. 34.) But this did not have
that effect as to judgments of the su-
preme court OF the District of Columbia
in those cases for the reason given in In