Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1899-06-16
oh IVioN
By Bonniheld, {. J.

By Bonnifeld, g. J.
Petitioner alleges that he is illegally re-
strained of his liberty by the Warden of
the State Prison. 1t is shown that on the
10Th day Of January, 1895, the petitioner
was duly sentenced by the District
Court of Washoe County TO serve a term
of -four years in said prison for the crime
of an attempt to break Jail. Second:
That on the 9TH day of May, 1926, the pc
titioner and one Seward Leeper upon a
joint indictment, trial and conviction for
the crime of IN assault with intent TO
Kill, were Jointly sentenced by said court
to serve a term Of seven years in said
prison, that it was not specified when
said second term should begin, and that
the petitioner has fully served said first
term.
Counsel contends, that the second sen
tence is void for uncertainty, in that it
neither provides that tho second term
shall begin at the ex piratiOu OF the first,
nor at any other specified time. But, a
sentence which does not specify any time
for the imprisonment to commence is
not void. The better practice is not to
tx the commencement of the term. but
merely to state IT'S duration and the place
of confinement, where the statute does
not otherwise provide. State VS.. Smith,
10 New. LOG: Bish. New Grim. Proc., S04
snd cases cited.0
Where the defendant is already in exc
vution on a former sentence and the
second sentence does net state that the
term is to begin at the expiration of the
former, the secoud will ruiz concurrently
with the first, in the absence of a statute
providing a different rule. (l Am. &
Eng. Ency. of Law, 1875, Note A.
The second contention is that where
two or more defendants are convicted
under a joint indictment they must be
separately sentenced; that the said second
sentence being against said two defend
ants jointly and not against each sen
Arately, it is void in that it was not with
in the jurisdiction of the court. Under
the statute two or more defendants may
be jointly indicted and tried for the same
public offence and if the jury cannot
agree upon a verdict as to all. they may
SiiaC q Vhoi us w 1C' ~ ANs"'N ~
whom they do agree, IN which a judg.
ment shall be entered accordingly, and
the case as to the rest may be tried by
another jury. Gen. Stats. Secs. $40
42939 The court had jurisdiction of the
subject matter embraced in the indict'
ment and of the defendants, and juris
aiction to enter judgment against the
defendants on the joint verdict OF the
jury Of guilty. The court having such
jurisdiction, it's judgment or sentence is
not void, however erroneous If may be
But whether erroneous or not this sour,
HdbeaS corpus proceedings cauno os
used to authorize the exercise Of apps,
late Jurisdiction. w can only look a
the record to see whether a judgment
exists and have no power to say whether
it is right or wrong. 1t is conclusively
presumed to be right until reversed; anC
when the imprisonment is undo process
valid on its face, it will be deemed prims
facie legal, and if the petitioner fails t.
show a want Of jurisdiction in the magis
tra:e or cour whence it emanated. hi.
body must be remanded to custody.
lex Parte Winston. 9 New. II. and au
thorities there cited
The General Statutes, Sec. 1863, provide
that it shall be the duty OF the Judge OF
h hearing in case of hdbeds corpus
be legally detained in custody has no