The Billings gazette. [volume] (Billings, Mont.) 1896-1919, 1907-03-12
MUST REMAIN A PRISONER
judge Dehayen Denies Petition for Writ
of nabeas Corpus.

ing into the United States district
court for habeas corpus, he had failed
to expost the state courts, not hav-
ing applied for relief to either the dis
trict court Of appeals or the supreme
court. Heney maintained that in
granting the writ Of error by which
Ruef appealed to the supreme court
Of the United States, Superior Judge
Hebbard acted without jurisdiction
an assertion, which he remarked, was
well sustained by the fact that bo5h
the district court of appeals and the
state supreme court had denied Ruef's
application for a writ Of prohibition
to prevent Superior Judge Dunno
from going ahead with his trial while
this appeal was pending.
Heney denounced the surrender uf
Ruef by his bondsmen as a pre- ar.
ranged scheme for the purpose, OH
Ruef's part, of inviting himself into
nominal custody, so that he might
then allege himself to be restrained
of his liberty, and out Of that allega
tion petition for writ Of habeas cor
pus.
"Under such circumstances said
Heney, "the constitution of the United
States offers the defendant no relief
by the writ he now seeks to obtain
here"
Mr.. Murphy replied at great length
denying all the important charges
made by the prosecution and quoting
many authorities in support Of the
contention of the defense that the act
of Superior Judge Hebbard in grant
ing Ruef an appeal by writ of error
was final judgment in that particu
lar cause, and not renewable. Muir
ply asserted that Judge Dunno, TO-
gether with Heney and other court Of
ficers, had placed themselves clearly
in contempt of the supreme court of
the United States, by refusing to
recognize In Ruef's appeal superse-
deas suspending his trial in the lower
court.
Heney replied vigorously, and was
followed by Henry Ach who made the
final argument for Ruef.
In denying Ruef's application for
writ of habeas corpus Judge Dehaven
said that the granting of writ of
habeas corpus is not an absolute right
and the supreme court of the United
States had declared in line of de-
cisions that district and circuia courts
should not interfere with actions Of
superior courts, unless some rights
guaranteed to the petitioner by the
federal constitution were being vio-
lated, and in the present instance such
did not appear to be the case.
GAS for the contention that the re-
spondents are committing contempt of
the supreme court of the United
States by their refusal to recognize in
petition on appeal to that court a su-
persedeas staying the proceedings
against him in the lower court, I do
\ not feel it encumbent upon me to ex-
ercise the power of this court to pro-
tect the jurisdiction of the United
States supreme court. That court is
fully able to enforce respect wherever
such enforcement may be necessary .
Ruef's counsel at once asked leave
to appeal from this decision, and
Judge Dehaven refused 1t.
.However," he remarked, "the de.
cision of this court should not be ac-
cepted as final There are two other
federal courts to which the petitioner
has access"
He referred to the United States
circuit court and the United States
circuit court of appeals, the latter
: composed of the two circuit judges
: and himself.
Asked if they proposed carrying
their appeal for writ of habeas cor
pus to either Of these tribunals, coun
sci for Ruef replied that they did moi
know yet.
Expressing appreciation of the i'm
portance Of Judge Dehaven's decision
Assistant District Attorney Hene.
! made the following statement:
: fTnnhin71ed nm Eaghfh pagao