Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1900-03-10

entry Of the judgment as required IN Sec
ton $50, Supra. shall be furnished
forthwith to the officer whose duty 1t Is
10 execute ths judgment, and that no
other warrant or authority is necessary
to justify or require the execution there
Of except when judgment Of death is
rendered.
We have then before us, as part of the
Warden's return, full and complete
copy Of the Judgment. In one essential
matter it fails to comply with the require
nents Of Section $50. 1t docs not briefly
or in any manner, state the odense for
which the petitioner had been convi cted.
We cannot knew, nor can the Warden
know therefrom the offenss TOR which the
prisoner was convicted and committed. 1t
appears from the judgment that the pc
titioner was convicted Of some crime, but
it is left to be surin sed what the crime is.
1t might be clsi'ned, as it was claimed on
the argument, that the recitals Of the
commitment ut the time Of passing sell
tence to the effect that the court informed
the petitioner of the finding of the in
dictment against him for murder, of his
arraignment, plea, trial and of the YER
dict, we're sufficient to raise presuMp-
ton that he had been convicted of the
crime of murder i'll the second degree.
But these recitals are no part OF the Judg-
ment and are only in keeping with the
requirements of a preceding section OF
the same Act Section 40 as to mere
matters Of procedure, and not of substan-
tive law, which if not included III the
commitment would not affect or impair
the right of the Warden to dstan the pc
titiener. This has been practically SO
held by the court. In Ex Parte Salge, LIST
Nevada, 453, it was held that commit
ment which was a certified copy of the
judgment, reciting court and cause, and
the sentence defining the punishment,
and 4 statement of the offsnss for which
the punishment is inflicted, was suffi-
cient warrant for holding a petitioner,
and was sufficient Judgment. In Cali
fornia. under similar statute, the same
rule prevails. In the case OF EA Parte
Ring, 2s Cal. 2o3, the Supreme Court of
that state held that a certified copy of
Judgment in the hands of tho Warden as
commitment, which failed to state the
effense for which the prisoner had been
convicted was not sufficient to warrant
his detention, but refused to discharge
him because it was shown that The judg-
meut entered in the minutes of the court
under the requirements ei the statute did
contain such statement and could readily
be obtaineds The supreme Court of that
State has in later cases followed the rule
laid down in the case cited.
Ex Parie Rays. 63 Cal. 1913.
TX Parte Williams. 50 Cal 266.
This court has also held judgment OF
conviction void IN proceedings on ha-
beas corpus for uncertainty in detini n 6
the time for which the defendant was
/, sentenced to prison.
. Elk Parte Roberts. 9 New. A.
, 1t therefore appears from the statut
and these decisions, that there are TIVE
! essentials to a valid judgment of cenvic
! ton and process Of commitment ISSUED
. thereon, namely, the statement defining
the punishment and the statement of tn
! oi1ense for which the punishment is in
! hicted.
g We are unable to see why judgmen
u or commitment should be held insui1
= cient for the omission Of one essentis
# and sufficient in case Of the omission {
# the other.
d Are the recitals of the commitmer
k showing judgment Of a court havin
8 Jurisdiction of the offense charged and {
: the person Of the petitioner conclnsiv
y of the legality of the imprisonment, an
2 can it not be attacked or impeache
d on habeas corpus? By Section 10 of tn
e Act regulating proceedings Oh Habea
1t Corpus, Gen. Stats. 36S5) it is provide
, that the party brought before the judy
sn the return Of the writ may deny c
he controvert any Of the material facts c
X 10 the sutficiency of the same, or alles
he any fact to show that either his imprisol
I'd ment or detention is unlawful, or that
o. is entitled to his discharge. But tn
is claim OF csncluSiveness is based upon
u subsequent section Of the same Ac
in Gen. Stats. 36S9) providing that it sha
ne be the duty of the judge, if the time d u
r. ing which the party may legally be q
re- tanned in custedyshas not expired. to r
he he is detained in custody by virtue of IL
OF final judgment or decree of any comp
er, tent court of criminal jurisdiction or
IN any process issued upon such judgMe
ag or decree, or in cases of contempt
is court. This section does not prescri
n the method by which such fact shall
NJ made to appear and we must conclu
lid that such showing was intended to
is made according to tho usual method
procedure in civil actions; that is, by t
ro- record Of the case. Constituting this s.
bat ton with section Is, supra, and wi
is the Immediately succeeding section,
ne think it was clearly intended that
hse jurisdiction of the court should be m
aa' ter to be properly inquired into on
10 beas corpus. This not only appears
efs, DO the rule of our statute, but We bei i,
the it is the rule generally and is sustai,
OF by a large number of well conside