The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-10-29
IN fHE DISTRICT COURTS
Petition Of James Duvall for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus.
The Defendant Again in Jail for nm
offence for Which He Was Once
Tried and Convicted-Funk's Coun-
sci to Make a Plea for Executive
Clemcncy - Defence of Lnnckton,

Probably the most important and in.
teresting question which will demand tn,
attention of the Supreme Court of The
District during this week will be tn,
disposition of the petition of Charles Du.
vail to secure his release from Jail. The
matter will come up before Justice Brad.
| lie: tomorrow in the form of habeas cor
pus proceedings. Duyall was arrested or
Tuesday last on an information sworn
out in the Police Court, charging him
with making an indecent exposure of his
| person.
About three months ago Duvall was ar
rested upon similar charge, in fact, fol
| the same offence for which he is now
held, and tried in the Police Court. He
was found guilty and sentenced to i'm
| prisonment in the workhouse for a term
| of six months. After he had been in
prison something over two months it was
| discovered that the information upon
| which he was tried and convicted was not
| sworn to by q proper oflicer, and through
| his attorney Duvall filed petition for 4
| writ of habeas corpus with view CT Sc
curing his release. The matter came W
! for hearing before Justice Bradley on
| Monday last and after hearing arguments
OIueTeu De released from
| custody On the ground that his conviction
was Illegal, in that it was improper for
him 10 have been put on trial upon an
information which was not sworn to by
proper officer.
The day after his release Duvall was
again arrested on warrant charging him
with the same offence for which he had
nearly three months before been tried and
convicted in the Police Court. and for
which he had served about two months Of
the six months sentence imposed upon
him.
The law prescribes that a person shall
not be twice put upon trial for the same
offence, nor shall person be twice put in
jeopardy for the same offence. On the
other hand it was contended that the
proper channel through which Duvall
should have asked relief when convicted
in the Police Court was through a mo-
tion for a new trial. The question, how
ever. which will have to be considered to-
morrow is whether or not the local police
had the authority to arrest Duvall for an
offence for which he had once before been
put in jeopardy. Duvall, when called to
trial on Tuesday last, demanded a trial by
jury.
When the decision of the Supreme Court
of the United States was announced DENY
ing the petition of Frank W. Funk, con-
Victed OF murder, Tor writ OF certiorari,
1t was expected that his attorneys, Messrs
Baker and Wolf. would Immediately have
made some move to delay the execution
Ii was expected that they would file a pc
tition for a writ OF habeas corpus before
one OF the justices of the Supreme Court of
the District, and II 1t We're denied again
take the case through all the courts to
the Supreme Court of the United States.
1t is not believed now that any step will
be taken along this line. There is every
probability, however, that the condemned
mans counsel will some day this week
make an appeal 10 the President for execu-
tive clemency.
Since Funk was informed of the decision
OF the Supreme Court Of the United States
he has become more serious. But he still