The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-12-24
STATE LAWS VIOLATED.
The Gold Brick Trio are Wanted in
South Carolina and Iowa for
Fleeing the Innocent.
ONE FELLOW SEPARATED FROM ST 200.
New Light Concerning The Swinders Who are
Seeking to Get Out Of the State Prison
by Habeas Corpus Proceedings in
the Federal Cours.

the Federal Cour.
The States answer to the petition Of
the gold brick trio, who are endeavofing
to get out of the State penitentiary on
habeas corpus proceedings in the FEEDER
al court, was filed yesterday.
Ex-Judge T. B. Womack and Solicitor
A. L. Brooks have been retained by the
Governor 10 defend the State, and they
yesterday filed the answer. Solicitor
Brooks prosecuted the criminals when
convicted ar the Guilford Superior court.
The hearing of the writ of habeas cor
pus will take place before Judge Purneli
next Saturday morning at 10 O'Clock,
when the gold brick swindlers, ]. l..
Howard, A. L. Doley and Fl. d. Hawley,
who are serving terms in the peniten-
tiary, viii be produced in court. AS The
public is aware the writ of habeas corpus
was issued last week by Judge Purnell
and served OH Capt. j. M. Fleming, Tie
Warden of the State prison.
The answer filed yesterday denies The
right of jurisdiction of the Federal court
and AYERS that the case can only be ap
pealed to the Supreme Court of the Unit
cd States. The interesting disclosure is
made that the gold brick gang is wanted
in South Carolina and Iowa for swindling
where in the Palmetto State they got 81
GEO out of one man.
The answer is addressed to the Hon.
N. W. Fuller, Chief Justice of the United
States Court and Judge T. R. Purnell, ac-
cording to the usual form The first part
OF the document admits facts charg-
Cd giving copy Of the true bill returned
by the grand jury and the history of the
case In court.
Replying to the charge that the jurors
were not drawn in the manner required
by the statute, the answer says they
were drawn and selected in the way and
manner in which the commissioners of
Guilford county have done for many
years." and that if the petitioners are
entitled 20 release from Imprisonment
by reason Of such irregularity, then all
the prisoners serving sentence under any
judgment upOn a verdict on a. bill OF in
dictment found in said county for many
years are entitled to a release and dis
charge from their said impriSonments.
1t is further claimed that under the
laws of the State and practice of the
courts, the irregularities complained of,
even if true, can be taken advantage OF
only before plea to bill of Indictment
found by such grand jury; that the de-
PENDANTS failed to take advantage of ami
claim any benefit growing out of such
charge; that they failed to move to
quash on any such grounds; that the
plea of mot guilty was made to the
bill without any objection to the manner
in which the jury was drawn; and that
they waived any objection to the said
jury.
1t is further claimed that the alleged
defect in drawing the jury cannot be
taken advantage of in this proceeding;
that the defendants appealed to the Sill
preme Court and made no objection to
the proceedings, doings and acts of the
court except such as are set forths in
the case on appeal.
1t is further set forth that the Sd
preme Court of North Carolina affirmed
the decision of the lower court charging
a. criminal offense cognizable under the
laws: that the Chief Justice dissented
as did another Justice, who expressed
himself as satisfied of the guilt of the
petitioners of the offense charged.
The further charge is made that the
petitioners in this action heretofore ap-
piled for writs of habeas corpus to two
of the Judges in North Carolina, includ-
ing Chief Justice Furches; that the said
Chief Justice declared the bail required
reasonable, just and legal and refused
TO alter same, as did two Superior Court
Judges, who passed upon the same ques-
ton.
And it is further alleged:
ic cd ny Gu
pleads that that this court is without
jurisdiction to hear and pass upon the
several alleged errors and Irregularities
set forth in the application OF the peli-
tioners, for that they severally arise I'M
der the constitution ard the laws OF the
State of North Carolina, and do not
come within the purview of section 733
revised statures of the United States IN
der which act this court derives its jul
Yisdiction in the premises in that the pc
titioners are not in custody in violation
Of the constitution or of a law or treaty
of the United States.
That the petitioners are not entitled
10 their discharge from custody upon the
facts stated in the application of the
petitioners, for that their remedy, II any
they have, is by a writ of error to the
Supreme Court of the United States, and
not by a writ Of habeas corpus.
That the petitioners are lawfully in his
custody as just and legal punishment
for their several heinous and aggravated
crimes and felonies.
That the punishment imposed upon
them is not unusual and is fully author
lied by the laws of North Carolina.
That from the facts presented to judge
Council at the trial A. l.. Daley and J. T.
Howard, two of the petitioners were
charged with carrying concealed wcap-
ons, having attempted to assault the OF