The Fairmont West Virginian. (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1904-1914, 1906-02-23
NiBsT REMAIN TN JAIL UNIT IL
JURY PASSES ON HIS CASE
WRIGHT IS NOW CONFINED
IN MONONGALIA BAsTM q
sFsoRT 10 OBTAIN RELEASE
WAS OF NO AVAIL BEFORE
JUDGE MASON.
SONS ARE CITED AND COM.
MENTs MADE ON RENDERING
THE DECISION.

MENTs MADE ON RENDERING
THE DECISION.
Attorney n. N. Ogden, chief counsel
fos Frank Wright, made application
Is Judge Mason this morning for the
release cfhis client on a habeas cor,
pus procedure. ona technically It
S claimed that Wright is imprisoned
prongfuiIy, principally because of the
iaet that two grand iuries have passed
on hissc case and found no charge OF
mnrder against him worth sustaining.
M ogden's petition says in part:
tie Prosecuting Attorney can
conane in prison a person suspected
Of 4 crime after two grand iuries have
passed upon his case for another peri.
cd covering the convening Of two
Grand 3dries, should these two latter
grand iuries also fail to tndict, he
can resort to the same procedure
aeain and again, and thus under the
forms Of law perpetually imprison the
accused. in case where the cir
cumstances Of suspected guilt arc
strong, though insufficient evidence
to indict Of convict. If the statute can
be rishtfully eyaded once, 1t can be
asain and again, definitely"
The following Is Judge Mason's
opinion, IN which he refused the ap-
piications OF course there is recourse
the defense; that is. by taking the
natter to the supreme court Of ap-
psals:
ExParty Frank w. Wright.
appears from said petition, rec.
ords and copies Of papers filed there
With that on the 11th day of August,
1905 the petitioner was committed to
The iaii Of Marion county upon war
rant and commitment of E. s. Amos,
Justice OF the peace Of said county,
charstng said Wright with the murder
IL jacob N. Payton, and that he was
couaned in the jail Of said county to
answer any Indictment which might
bs preferred against him by a grand
jury Of said county for said oftense;
that 4 regular term Of the said court
Sas held for said county in October,
Sos. at which a grand jury was pres
ent and empaneledi and that another
regular term Of said court was held
for said county in the month of De-
cember, 1905, at which a grand jury
VAS empaneled and no indictment
as returned against the said Wright
81 either Of said grand 1uries; and
IL does not appear that the failure
"a ihdIct said Wright at either term
Of said court was on account Of ma
efiai witnesses for the state being
nticed or kept away, or that such
Witnesses were prevented from at
lending ON account of sickness or in.
yitable accident, or that the said
wright was or had been discharged
the December term Of court, the
aId WRIGHT was upon his own motion
iiscbatged from imprisonment by tho
court and that after the adjournment
q said December term of court, to-
MI on the srd day Of January 1906,
the said Wright was arrested upon a
warrant issued by a justice Of the
peace q said county, charging him
With the same ofense for which ne
was before arrested and DISCHARGED
a the manner above stated and was
again committed to the jail-of Marion
county by said Justice to answer any
indictment which should be returned
sainst. him by the grand Jury OF
Marion county for said offense, which
commitment seems to be in lawful
iorrn and said Wright is now confined
Ii Sll under said commitment, Petit
toner nov alleges that he is illegally
confined for the reason that having
been heretofore In confinement for the
same oRense, and discharged by the
cont is herelnbeiore stated, his pres,
ent confinement Is without authority
q law and illegal No other grounds
are pointed out and none appears on
Inc face Of the petition and exhibits
med herewith, lam clearly Of opln;
lon that Il plainly appears from said
petition and exhibits that the peti.
ticner & not iilsgsiiy held thatlhis
iormsr discharg does not prot hifn
nom arrest andipunishment Il found
guilty. for the oaeuse charBed against
him: that he has not been Ia Jeopardy
for this o1ense: hat inasmuch aa he