Evening star., 1900-10-12
UNDER CONSIDERATION
APPLICATION FOR RELEASE UNDER
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.
9ustice Bradley Says Petitioners Had
Evidently Been Railroad
Into the WOrkhOuse.

Justice Bradley of the Supreme Court OF
the District of Columbia today gave hear
ing in connection with a petition for writ
of habcas corpus filed by Frank Norris,
Lewis Baker and David Collins. The peti.
TONERS alleged that they have been un-
lawfully and nlegally restrained of their
liberty in tne Washington workhouse by
virtue Of a commitment by the folice
Court. Attorney A S Colyar represents
the petitioners. while Messrs. c. a. Bran
denburg and A. Leftwich Sinclair. assist
ant attorneys for the District of Columbia.
appear for the intendent of the Washing
ton Asylum. After argument by counsel
Justice Bradley took the matter under con.
sideration.
1t was alleged in the petition that Morris,
Barker and Collins were committed to the
wcrkhouse by the Police Court the 6th IN
slant. Morris and Collins say they are
residents of the District. and 1t is alleged
that Barker is resident of Baltimore. Md
1t was charged in the petition that Morris,
Barker and Collins engaged lodging FRIDAY
night October ), and duly paid for the
same at a lodging house kept by Mr.. James
De Lay, at 102 and 1o4 b street; that after
they had gone to bed in the house, at
about IL O'Clock the night of the 9TH De
tectiyes Weeden and Horn of the MetropOh-
itan police force. came to their rooms ana
without serving any warrant upon them
forced them to get up and dress them
selves and conducted them to the sixth pre-
cinct station and locked them up, without
telling them of any charges against them
and without giving them an opportunity TO
furnish bond for their appearance TO an
swer for any offense against them that
might be alleged.
The petitioners further explained 10 the
court that they had committed no CRIME
and believe that they were arrested merely
on suspicion. They alleged that they did not
know what they were charged with until
they were taken into the Police court
room. and did not have time to employ
IL wyer and to secure witnesses, and that
they were forced to trial without being
given time to prepare their defense 1t was
stated that they were convicted py the
court and fined $40 each, and in default OF
the payment of the fine were committed to
the workhouse for the term of $50 days
each
The petitioners set forth in their petition,
in conclusion. that the charge against
them in the Police Court was an after
thought on the part of Detectives Weeden
and Horn. and that the trial was a farce
and travesty or Justice
Principal Contention.
The principal contention advanced in be-
half of the petitioners was that the infor-
nation against them in the Police Court
was not sworn to; that therefore the pro-
ceedings in the Police Court were null and
void; that in consequence the petitioners
are deprived of their liberty without due
process of law, and that the matter was a
proper one to proceed with by habeas cor
pus.
The attorneys for the District of Column
bia argued that 1t having been shown that
the petitioners had been relegated TO the
workhouse by commitment in proper form.
Justice Bradley had no authority to go
back of that commitment.
They should have proceeded by motion to
Quash the information IN the Police Court
or by writ of error" said Attorney Bran
denburg. "Habeas corpus is not the proper
action. ! will admit that a showing
similar to the one made here these men
would unquestiOnab bly, secure a new trial in
the Police Court, and / doubt If they could
be prosecuted further on the same charge
1T seems clear remarked Justice Brad
ley, that the petitioners were railrOaded
into the workhouse. They were gathered IN
by detectives, thrown together on an infor-
nation, rushed into court hastily tried,
pushed into a Black Maria and showed be-
hind the bars. But all that seems to be
error, and not matter to be considered on
habeas corpus. However, if there IS any
thing before this court that be taken
hold of the court ought to take hold"
1t was reiterated on behalf of the peti-
TONERS that the informa ton not having
been sworn to the proceedings in the Po-
lice Court were null and void, and there
fore Justice Bradley, in connection with
the petition for habeas corpus should de-
eide whether not the men are deprived
of their liberty without due process of law.
After further argument the court, as
stated, took the matter under consideration.