Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-03-23
COURT DECISIONS.
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest to
Our People.
DIGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN,
Exclusively for virginian-P ilot.)
HARKRADER. SHERIFF., v. WAD-
LEY

Supreme Court. United States.
December 5, 1898.
A CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES. ALTHOUGH THERE
WE'RE SUITS IN EQUITY PEND
ING IN IT TO SETTLE THE AT
FAIRS OF A STATE BANKING IN
STITUTION. CANNOT RESTRAIN
BY INJUNCTION THE TRIAL OF
THE CASHIER OF THE BANK, BY
A. STATE COURT, FOR EMBEz-
ELEMENT OF THE FUNDS OF
THE BANK.
THE ORDER OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT IN SUCH A CASE, RE-
LEASING THE CASHIER FROM
THE CUSTODY OF THE SHERIFF.
OF THE STATE COURT. RE-
vERSED. AND THE CASHIER RE-
STORED TO THE SHERIFF'S
KEEPING.
Wadley was cashier of the Wythevllle
Insurance and Banking Company, and
was indicted in the County Court of
Wythe county for embezZlement, and
was held in custody by the sheriff of
Wythe county, awaiting trial. The
Circuit Court of the United States for
the Western District of Virginia issued
writ of habeas corpus, and released
Wadley from the custody of the sheriff.
pending an Injunction. which it issued.
restraining the Commemorative At-
torney of Wythc county from trying
the said Wadley for embezzlcment.
The County Court having committed
him to custody in default of bail-from
this order discharging Wadley. the
sheriff appealed.
The court says:
We now come to the question, thus
solely presented for our consideration
Had the Circuit Court of the United
States authority to issue Il writ of ha-
beas corpus to take and discharge Il
prisoner from the custody of the state
Court, when proceeding under n State
statute not repugnant to the laws or
constitution of the United States. I'M
der which the petitioner had been in
dicted for an offence against the laws
of the State? In the present case it
Is not contended that the State statute
was repugnant to the constitution or
any law of the United States, or that
the state did not have jurisdiction of
the offence charged and Of the person
OF the accused. Blu, 1t Is claimed that,
as the Circuit Court had obtained prior
ana therefore exclusive Jurisdiction of
the affairs and assets Of the Wytheville
Banking and Insurance Company, n
tbl 'Oldi vi the St1tc OF virginia. by
virtue of two suits in equity brought
In said court 1t followed that the State
Court had no jurisdiction pending those
suits, 10 proceed by way of Indictment
and trial against an officer for the Of
fence of embezZcment. as created and
defined by valid statute OF the Stats
Of Virginia. For the State Court 10 So
proceed. II is claimed. constituted an
Interference with the Federal Court in
the exercise of it's jurisdiction: and that
hence Ii was competent for the United
States Court to grant an Injunction
against the prosecution of the criminal
case and release the prisoner by n writ
OF habeas corpus. 1t Is not denied. on
behalf of the appellee. that by Section
40 of the Revised Statutes 1t Is pro-
vided that the writ OF injunction shall
not be granted by any court of the
United States TO stay proceedings in
any cour; of n state. except where
such Injunction may be authorized by
any law relating to proceedings In
bankruptcy.
If any case could he supposed in
which court Of equity might look be-
hind the formal proceeding. in the name
OF me state Ito see that its promoters
are parties to the case pending in the
the Court of Equity. using thu nrocees
OF the Criminal Court not to enforce the
rights Of the public. but to coerce the
defendant 10 surrender in the civil case.
IL Is sufficient to say that. in the pres
ent case. the indictment whose prose
cution the Circuit Court sought to stay.
appears to have been regularly found,
ana To assert an offcnse against n law.
OF the State, the validity of which &c
not assailed. The fallacy of the arru-
ment OF the appellee is the assumption
that the same right was involved in
Inc criminal case, and In the civil case.
SUI IL Is obvious that the civil liability
~ Id =