Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-12-10
CASE OF THOMAS NJ. FIELDS
wRoNGFULLY CONVICTED, 50
JUDGE DAYTON DECLARES.
Denies Petition, However, for Writ
of Habeas Corpus-Appeal to
Supreme Court.

In the case of Thomas NJ Fields, who
is serving a sentence of five years in the
penitentiary at Moundsville. w. Va. on
conviction of having embezzled funds OF
the defunct Washington Beneficial En-
dowment Association, of which he was
one of the receivers, his petition for dis
charge on writ of habeas corpus has been
denied by Judge Dayton. In the United
States court for the northern district OF
West Virginia. Judge Dayton. in express
ing his opinion, however states emphat-
ically the belief that Fields was wrong
fully convicted, and declares that every
facility shall be extended to the prisoner
to carry his case directly to the Supreme
Court of the United States. 1t is UNDER
stood that the case will be carried before
the highest tribunal in the land on direct
appeal without further delay.
The sole question in this case is
whether or not the statute applies and
makes criminal the acts and facts alleged
and proved and held sufficient to warrant
verdict of guilty under its terms and
conditions Judge Dayton says. That
question has been passed on by the Su-
preme Court of the District of Columbia.
and its judgment has been found to be
correct, and has been approved by the
Court of Appeals of that District. They
have construed the language of this
Stotutc " reach DdCh ana apply TO per-
sons and property that had come Into
possession in the past, before its enact
| ment.
Should Not Have Been Convicted.
Il disagree. l believe and hold that the
statute embraces only persons and prop
erty that may come into possession in
the future, after it took effect. and it has
no ap., lication whatever to the case or
facts, and Mr. Fields should not have
been convicted under its provisions but,
nevertheless, / am constrained to hold, as
held before, that l have no right to re-
lease him on the writ of habeas corpus.
as 1t can in no case be substituted for or
used as a writ of error. I have no right
to say that the other four judges who
held the opinion that the statute did ap-
ply. and did warrant the conviction, were
wrong, and that my opinion to the con-
trary Is right. 1t is the duty of this court
to refuse to grant the petitioner his dis
charge on this habeas corpus. II granted.
1t should be by the Supreme Court of the
United States. in the exercise, Of its
broader powers and wider discretion.
1T is agreed that an appeal from the
judgment in this case lies direct to the
Supreme Court Of the United States. I
want to say that in my opinion such an
appeal can be taken direct to the Supreme
Court, and l rejoice that this can be done.
Every facility to that end will be ac-
| corded the petitioner. and the entry OF
the formal judgment will be postponed
until he has been fully advised in the
premises" ~
Counsel for Fields says Judge Dayton's
premise, that the statute does not apply,
is correct. but his conclusion that this
gives no right of discharge Is false and
impossible. He claims it Is elementary
law that If criminal statute does not
apply, the sentence Is absolutely void,
and habeas corpus is the remedy.