The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1900-07-17
REMANDED
ALLGOOD REFUSED a WRIT OF
HABEAs CORPUS.
Judge Haymaker Decides That the
Prisoner Is Legally Held.

The hearing of the application for a
writ Of habeas corpus for the release Of
Frank Augood came up again in the pro-
bate court yesterday and was brought to
| a close by the denying Of the writ by
| Judge Haymaker.
Allgood was arrested some time ago on
a warrant issued from Justice Glenns
court, which was not served on him until
after the law governing the jurisdiction
of the justice courts went into effect It
was claimed in the court that Augood
had never been arrested on a warrant
issued from either the district or city
courts and that for that reason he was
being illegally held in jail. as the other
court had no jurisdiction over the case
at this time. It was also claimed that
he had never had proper preliminary
hearing since his arrest which was
some time in May. Allgood vas arrest
ed on the charge Of stealing d horse
from a man named Schirmer near Maize.
The horse was afterwards found in Rice
county and returned to the owner.
Judge Haymaker. in making his de-
cision on the application. said as fol-
lows:
There are three material points raised
in this case.
The first one is, was there a case pend
ing before Judge Glenn at the time of the
expiration of his court. An information
had been fled, and a warrant issued, but
not served.
This condition Of affairs is equivalent
to a proceeding pending, in the language
Of the statute, hence the new law does
not apply to tins case.
The second point is, had Justice Belle
jurisdiction to hear the preliminary trial?
There is a general provision of the
statutes that succeeding justices have
the same power and jurisdiction as their
predecessors.
IF the new law did not apply to this
case to deprive Justice Glenn OF jurisdic-
ton, then. under this general provision,
Justice Bell would have the same juris-
dicuon.
The third point is, had Sheriff Sim
mons the right to hold the prisoner under
a warrant and without commitment of
the court?
IT IS true, generally, that a sheriff has
no right to hold a prisoner without a
commitment. simply on a warrant 1t is
his duty, after arrest, TO take the pris-
oner forthwith 70 the justice, or court,
for preliminary hearing; but in this
case the, return OF the sheriff to the writ
shows that the prisoner himself, as well
as his attorney, asked that the prehmin-
airy trial be delayed.
He ought not TO be allowed TO take
advantage Of his own wrong, and while
the sheriff did wrong in delaying the pre-
Lminary hearing. under the oircum-
stances I do not believe it should operate
TO release the prisoner. The release Of
the prisoner is refused. and he is re-
manded to jail"
The habeas corpus proceeding attracted
considerable attention because Of the
fact that Allgood was implicated IN the
New murder in Greenwood county by
the confession Of Al Ballard, who Is now
in the penitendary. Ballard was brought
here some time ago and pointed out sew
eral things IN connection with the case,
but Governor Stanley refused to pardon
him in order that his testimony might
be used agains. Alleged.
ATgood Will have his preliminary hear
ing on the charge OF stealing the horse
near Maize before Justice Bell at the city
building next Thursday It IS understood
that the United States officials have =
warrant for his arrest for counterfeiting
which viii be served on him should he
be released from jail here.