Vilas County news. [volume] (Eagle River, Vilas County, Wis.) 1896-1927, 1898-03-28
Madison, March %.

@@SSA4SA~S 1890
The supreme court of Wisconsin
Tuesday decided that court commits
sioner cannot issue a writ OF habeas
corpus to prisoners confined in the
state penitentiary. This power, it was
held, rests solely with the supreme
court itself. This opinion was rem
dered by the court in the case OF the
state on the relation of Fred. Heiden,
Jr,. plaintiff in error, against Hugh
Ryan, court commissioner OF Mil
vaukee. Peter Roszcynialla was SEN
fenced on Nov. 13, 1897, blythe mu-
nicipal court of Milwaukee county to
serve two years in the house or correc-
ton on a charge of burglary. Whlle
this charge was pending, Roszcyn1alla,
who was out ON bail, was sentenced by
a justice of the peace to serve six
months for larceny. While he was
serving this sentence for larceny he
was brought before the municipal
court, tried and convicted on the
;harge of burglary, and sentenced to-
serve two years from the day OF the
sentence, Nov. IL, 1897. Soon after,
strained of his liberty, he secured a
writ of habeas corpus from Commits
sioner Ryan. The latter decided that
the sentence for larceny had not ex-
pired, and that all the proceedings
under the burglary charge were void
and that when the six months term
for larceny was ended Roszcynialla
fon hot
he was serving a term at the time he
was tried on the burglary charge was
held by the commissioner to invali
date the trial for burglary. Fred Held
en-, who has charge of the house OF
correction, appealed to the supreme
court. Justice Marshall, who wrote
the opinion cites chap. 95, laws Of
1864, in which he says that power to
issue writs of habeas corpus in cases
of confinement in the state
prison was restricted to the justices
of the supreme court. The effect OF
that act, the opinion says, was to take
from all courts and officers, except
those mentioned, power to issue Writs
in such cases. The fact that the act
mentions only the state prison, while
Roszcynialla was confined in the house
of correction, is not recognized by the
court as making any defense. while
the opinion says, when the law was
enacted, there was but one place OF
confinement for persons guilty OF Sucn
offenses-to wit, the state prison at
Waupun-it would not ba seriously
contended, but that other places of
confinement for the same grade of of
tense, subsequently established, would
be state prisons by implication though
called by some other name. The
opinion concludes by ordering that the
order of the commissioner be reversed,
and the writ be dismissed. This will
leave the status OF Roszcynialla some
what uncertain, and more work for the
courts is likely to result before the
question whether he must serve one OF
two sentences is determined.
Other cases decided were: -.
State ex rel. Reed vs. Ohm, ct al
execution stayed on filing within ten
days from this date a bond in the sum
of $4,000 with two sureties approved
by the clerk of the trial court, con-
ditioned to pay all damages which the
opposite party may sustain by reason
thereof, without costs.
Ellis vs. Lampman motion to dis
miss appeal grant-d with costs.
Ellis VS.. Allen; motion to dismiss
appeal denied with $40 costs.
Daniels VS.. city of Racine; affirmed.
F1aney VS.. Wauwatosa Park Co.
affirmed.
Maloney VS.. Wauwatosa Park Co.;
affirmed
Peehl VS.. Bumbalek; affirmed.
Olson vs. Olson; affirmed.
Crogster VS.. Bayfield, county; that
part of judgment sanctioning the va
lidity of such last installment of bonds
reversed, and the judgment in all
other respects affirmed, and the entry
thereof to be modified accordingly,
without costs, except plaintiff is to pay
clerks fees.
Moody VS.. Meckelburg Co. VS. trus-
tees M. E. church of Port Washing
ton; that part of judgment dismissing
complaint as to Leck affirmed with
costs, and that part of judgment dis
missing complaint as to the trustees
reversed, and action remanded with
direction to enter judgment for a lien
in accordance with the prayer of the
complaint.
Kane VS.. Williams; affirmed on both
appeals.
Zehren VS. Milwaukee Electric Rail-
way and Light Co.; affirmed
Robran VS.. Milwaukee Electric Rail
way and Light Co.; affirmed.
IIennessey VS.. c. e N. w. Ry. Co.; |
reversed.
Cook VS.. M, st. P. & S. Ste. Marie