Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-11-29

and comes before the court on motions
10y the Commonwealth OF Virginia 10 dis
miss or affirm. Argument was had az
the bar. and briefs submitted. Where
there is no color for the motion 10 dis
miss. the practice is not 10 entertain the
motion 10 affirm, but ON occasion "a dlt-
ferent course may be pursued. We think
that principe g. applicable mere, ana That
The Commonwealth OF Virginia, i'm view
Of the fact that the injunctions interfere
with the ordinary course Of her crimlnal
procedure. and that the supreme Court
/ Of the United States has already deter
mined that the writs were improvldently
/ issued. is entitled TO have the motion 10
affirm disposed of.
CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY.
After citing various opinions. which
bear on this case Chief-Justice Fuller
says:
The fallacy IN the argument OF the APP
pcilce I'm the present case Is I'm the as
sumption that the same right was in
Volyed in the criminal case In the state
Court ana I'm the equity case pending IN
the Federal Court. But 10 b. obvious that
the civil liability of Wadley 90 indemnify
the plaintiffs in the equity suits, by rtd-
son Of losses occasioned 10y his miscOn-
duct as an officer of the hank, is another
and very different question from his
criminal liability 10 the commonwealth
of Virginia for embczziement of funds oil
the bank.
And. after some observations illustra-
tive OF this difference. 10 was added:
"Embo zziemcnt by AN officer OF bank
organized under 20 state statute Us NOT
an offence which can be inquired into or
punished by a Federal court Such an
offence Is against the authority and laws
of the state. The judicial power granted
to their courts 10y the Constitution OF the
United States does not cover such y
case. The Circuit Court of the United
states for the Western District OF Viz
pinia could not. I'm the first instance, have
taken jurisdiction of the offence charged
I'm the indictment, nor can IT, by bill I'm
equity, Withdraw the case from the state
Court. or suspend or stay It's proceed-
ings.'
The opinion then proceeded. No case
can be- found where an injunction against
a state officer has been upheld where
IL was conceded that such officer was
proceeding under a valid state statute.
fu thc present case, the commonwealth s.
Attorney in the prosecution OF an lndici-
mcnt found under law admittedly valid
REPRESENTED the state % Virginia and the
miunctiOns were. therefore. in substance
miunctiOus against the state. IL Is
further cOnteudcd, on behalf OF appellee,
that. even n the iniunctiOns In the equity
causes restraining the proceedings In the
County Court were erroneous, they could
not be attacked collaterally by this APP
neal I'm the habeas corpus case. The OBJ
Vions answer To- this Is. that this court
is dealing only with the question or Inc
jurisdiction of the court below. To the
return Of the Sheriff 1ustiiying MS de-
teitiOn OF the prisoner 10y setting mp the
order of the County Court, the petitioner,
Wadley. by way of reply pleaded the IN
functions. This. Of course, raised the
question OF the validity OF those lnJunc1
items. If they were VOID, they conferred
no jurisdiction upon the Circuit Court 10
enforce them as against the officers ana
process 81 the State court.
Again. it h. urged mat the Indictment
had been improperly found by reason Of
Ia. 4Iu lf
Wadley's dispositions in the civil case.
But, even n what passed IN the biahu
jury rom can be inquired into on a
writ of haheas corpus, and this We 10
not cuncede. the remedy for such mis-
conduct must Doe sought I'm the court
having control and jurisdiction over the
proceedings.
THE APPEAL Is AFFIRMED.
So too, any offence 70 the dignity or
authority OF the Circuit Court, by me
misuse Of its records or papers, by It's
suitors or their counsel can be corrected
by that court without extending It's ac-
ton so as To include the state Court OF IT'S
officers.
We are Of opinion. then. that court Of
equity although having jurisdiction over
person and property IN d case pehulhs
before it, Is not thereby vested WIN
jurisdiction over crimes committed IN
dealing with such property by party
before the civil suit was brought ana
cannot restrain 10y Injunction proceedings
regularly brought I'M q ciiHllhdI couIt H"F
ing jurisdiction Of the crime and or the
accused Much more are We OF opinion
that "a Circuit Court Of the United States,
sitting I'm equity in the administration OF
civil remedies. has no jurisdiction 10 stay
10y Injunction proceedings pending IN a
State court in The name of "a State 10 en-
force the criminal laws ot such state.
And see to same effect Fits VS.. McGhee,
~ l.. 5. SIC.
such having been the decision OF the
Supreme Court I'm the premises II iOl-
lows that Judge Paul could not have done
otherwise than dissolve the injunctiOns
which that court had thus held the Cir
cuit Court had no jurisdiction 10 issue
The order appealed from is accordingly
affirmed.