The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1907-07-30
AND MRS. ROWLAND
HELD WITHOUT BAIL
Justice Conner Refuses to Interfere Through Writ
of Habeas Corpus.
A PRESUMPTION

In demanding the Prisoner the judge
stated That. a BtIi OF Indictment
Having Been FOUND Against Tit~nl.
it Was Incumbent uron Them "a
Rcbut the Presumption RAISED b,
Iaw-Thoush The, Had >ot Done
This. The Judge Pointed out That
the Case Silould Proceed without
Prejudice and That the Proceeding
Nas Not one Where lie Was PAS
ing OF Probable cau>c-Iioviand
MET 1t With e smile"
David : Rowland ana Lillian VI
Rowland. his wife. are remandvd -
Wake county jail. WITHOUT bail. t.
await their tr.aI upon the bill Of in
dictment found against them ~ the
last term OF the court.
This result came when Justice Con-
nor yesterday announced his decision
in their application for BAH IN 4 Hrlt
sued Il IN nabeaS 0rpus after three
days spent IN the taking OF testi-
mony.
In announcing his decision Justice
Conner stated that il must be under
stood that. an indictment having been
found by The grand jury. that raised
a presumption against the petition
ers which it was upon them in the
hearing to rebut. Formerly. after in
dictment. q judge was not permitted
TO release persons held for u capital
felony on bail. but the rule had been
modified SO as 10 give that power in
case they showed a clear right 10 the
privilege.
In making his order he was careful
to say that he particularly desired
that, on a subsequent trial. there
should be nothing done or said rela-
tive 10 the proceeding just closed that
might tend to prejudice either OF the
petitioners.
Was No Argument.
The early conclusion Of the hear
ing was not expected. Attorney Hicks.
for the petitioners. had argued the
case on Wednesday afternoon and il
was expected that further argument
would be heard from either side yes
terday at nine-thirty o'clock. When
the counsel arrived, however. they
speedily came to al agreement among
themselves that there should be no
further argument and when Judge
Connor took his seat at about ten
o'clock this determination was COM
municated to him through Solicitor
Jones, unless he desired to hear furth-
er from the counsel.
Upon this Judge Connor stated that.
having expected argument, he was not
ready to make his order out would do
SO at twelve o'clock.
Before the recess was taken il was
suggested by counsel that the action
of the state in not permitting the pc
titioners to be represented at the cor
oner's inquest mad been criticised and
they desired that the Judge give an
expression of his opinion as to the
course followed.
For the petitioners. Mr.. Hicks
stated tina no reflection was meant
by what had been said by him in his
argument, but that counsel had
thought at h time that they nad
certain rights which they had been
denied.
Mr.. Holding stated that he had au-
thorities to show that the position Of
the counsel for the petitioners at the
time was correct.
When the court recOnvened at noon
Justice Conner stated that, strictly
speaking, there were no parties to a
coroner's inquest, and for that reason
the coroner was justified in refusing
the demand Of the petition
IL u NC al u
ner's verdict was. therefore, open to
review through a proceeding in ha-
beas corpus for the purpose of de-
termining whether or not there had
been probable cause SHOWN. as was
the case where the parties had beer
bound over by a magistrate.
Bill a Presumption.
When a bill of indictment was
brought, however, that implied some
thing more than probable cause but
some positive evidence of guilt and
raised a presumption which it was
necessary for the petitioners to rebu'
in order to obtain the relief asked
He referred to the fact that formerly
where an Indictment had been found
there was no relief open through ha,
beas corpus proceedings but that the
rule had been relaxed in Herndon's
case SO as to permit a judge to ad-
nit to bail where the petitioner made
out a clear case.
He then made his order remand
ing both of the petitioners to Jail a.
under the bill of Indictment.
Following some discussion as L
costs. Mr.. Hicks stated that the pc
t~itioners, being man and wife, h
thought it proper that they should
be permitted to communicate witt
each other while in jal, even though
they were compelled to occupy sepa
rate cells. He declared thar they hdf
not been guilty of any crime and /
had been suggested TO him that theiI
opportunities Of seeing one anOtne'
had been taken away on the advice
of the States counsel.
To this Solicitor Jones stated tina
the defendants were charged with
conspiracy and that he had spokel
to the sheriff about permitting then
to ak with one another.
After further discussion, Judg,
Conner stated that ne had no author
t ity in that matter and that the sher
if must proceed under the statute an'
in accordance with the advice given
him by his legal counsel. AT the con
clusion Of the nearing the judge in
structed Deputy Croker 20 tell tn
sheriff that there was nothing in tn
statute to prevent his permitting tn
r privilege suggested and that as I
I whether he would do so or not was
l. mater for him under advice. Solicito
Jones also stated that. as 10 permit
ting conversations between the peti
e TONERS in the company Of an officer
ne, too. was entirely willing TO Ieav
the question to the determination 0
the sheriff and his counsel.