The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-09-16
JUDGE PURNELL
DISM|SSES WR|TS
Bertha Brown and Others
are Remanded.
STATE COURTS RULE
Judge Holds He Has Jurisdiction, But
No Power TO Override Supreme
Court On Question OF COnsti-
stutiOnaIitY of Police


In the Federal Court yesterday Dis
trict Judge Purnell dismissed all four
of the petitions i'm habeas corpus by
Bertha Brown, the out-cast woman
convicted in the Police Justices Court
and sentenced to pay a fine of S100,
and the three Negroes, Snow, Person
and Brown, now serving sentences on
the roads under conviction in the
same court.
In rendering his opinion Judge Pur-
nell held that he had jurisdiction TO
hear the petitions, but that the grounds
! relied on, that a refusal of the right
OF trial by jury applied to the State
| courts under the United States Con-
stitution, would not hold Such con-
stitutional provisions, he declared to
refer only to the Courts of the United
| States.
During the course of his opinion
| the Judge let fall some remarks con-
cerning the peonage cases recently de-
termined by the Supreme Court OF the
| United States, saying, however, that
the point of peonage had not been
raised, and that he would dismiss the
| petitions.
After the hearing Col. j. c.. L., Har-
ris, counsel for the Brown woman, was
seen and asked what course his client
| would pursue. He stated that she
would appear today before the Police
Justice and surrender herself in ac-
cordance with the provisions of her
bond, and that he should refuse to
/ pay the fine imposed. and let the
Police Justice decide what he would
do. with the woman.
asked what course would be pur-
sued in the event that she was SEN
fenced to the roads, Colonel Harris
] fla1 rfo l,1f h.r szff h1H
something up his sleeve"
BY this it is supposed that ne re-
ferred to the intimation of the court
with regard to peonage, in which case
he will probably take the ground that
restraint and Imprisonment for the
| non payment of a fine and costs is
peonage under the recent decisions of
! the Federal Court.
The Brown woman is said to have
| accumulated some little money dur
| ing her career. She is q fighter for
the privilege of continuing her occu
/ patton, and goes to the last legal ditch.
! Recently, in Durham, she stood two
or three trials for maintaining q dis
orderly house in that city, and was
acquitted in each Instance.
Judge PurneIls Opinion.
The following is the decision of
| Judge Purnell:
United States of America Eastern
District of North Carolina-In the
! District Court.
| In re Bertha Brown, Osborn
! Brown, Will Snow and John Person
Writ habeas corpus.
! Purnell Judge. Orally.
! 1t will be noted that the writs i'm
these cases were issued on a day when
the Circuit and Districts courts were
! both regularly opened and upon Pc
| tition which showed that citizens of
| the State We're restrained of their
! liberties.
In basing an argument as to juris-
diction counsel are inadvertent TO the
law as enacted in section 609, Re-
vised Statutes, and decided in Robin
son VS. Satterfee. 3 Sawyer, 1874, Fed
eral Cases No. 1867 in re Circuit
Court / Dill /, Federal Cases No. 120
and No. $3.50, section 7b2, Revised
Statutes, provides the several justices
and judges of the said courts, within
| their respective jurisdictions. shall
have power to grant Writs of habeas
corpus for the purpose of an inquiry
/ into the cause of restraint of liberty.
| There is, therefore, no force in the
question suggested as to the jurisdic-
| ton, though it is proper to be raised
| in every case and is the first question
! the court should consider.
Upon petition presented. the writ
was properly issued, Bertha Brown
was in custody and the other defend
ants in the work house.
AS to the question of a violation of
the State Constitution, this court will
not consider or construe the State
Constitution, but will adhere and fol-
low the decisions of the Supreme
Court Of the State. The Supreme
Court of the State having construed
the action of the General Assembly in
establishing a similar court, the ques-
tion affecting violation of the State
Constitution are eliminated.
Does the act of the General Assem-
bly, violate the Constitution OF the
United States? The police powers of
the State are not discussed except in
cidentally. although the court direct
ed attention to this question: Petition
ers rely on the decision of Callan VS..
Wilson, 127 u. s., opinion by Justice
Harlan, and the opinion delivered by
Judge Speer, as reported in 1870 Fed
Rep. The first decision is under the
third amendment of the Constitution.
which, with others of the first eight
amendments to the Constitution, ap-
ply to proceedings in the United States
courts. In the argument it was con-
ceded, or if not conceded, it is the
opinion of this court, that the opinion
of Justice Harlan is applicable to the
Federal Courts and has nothing to
do with the proceedings i'm State
courts. In the decision or able opinion
of Judge Speer in the other case. there
Continued on Page Eight.)