The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1908-12-03

High Sheriff to execute the sentence of
death on January %. 1907. No writ of
error was sued out on the foregoing
judgments Of the Supreme Court. The
plaintiff in error, however. SIX days be-
fore the date fixed for his execution,
filed petition for habeas corpus in the
Supreme Court of the Territory, basing
his claim for discharge from custody
upon the same facts set forth in the
plea of abatement and in the agreed
statement of facts. The petition al
| legged that for the reason of the dis
qualification of eight members of the
grand jury, the Indictment was void,
and that the trial Court was without
jurisdiction to proceed against him I'M
der it, The writ of habeas corpus was
discharged and the petitioner remanded
TO the custody of the sheriff, and to
this judgment the present writ of error
is directed.
The principal question argued before
us by counsel is, whether the eight
members of the grand jury, whose quail
ifications were questioned, were nat
uralized by Courts having the authority
to naturalize aliens. But we find no
occasion to decide or consider this ques-
ton. If the plaintiff in error desired
the Judgment of this Court upon it he
should have brought writ of error to
the judgment of the Supreme Court of
the Territory which passed upon it in
affirming the judgment of conviction in
the trial Court. He may not lie by, as
he did in this case, until the time for
the execution of the Judgment comes
near, and then seek to raise collaterally
by habeas corpus, questions not affect
ing the jurisdiction of the Court. which
convicted him, which were open to him
in the original case, and, if properly
presented then, could ultimately have
come to this court upon writ of error.
PROFESSIONALLY. if the trial Court had
exceeded its jurisdiction a prisoner held
under its judgment might be discharg-
ed from custody upon a writ of habeas
corpus by another Court having the
authority to entertain the writ, ex parte
Lange, is Wall. 1853; ex parte Siebold,
100 U. S. 81; ex parte Yarbrough, 40
Z. S. 651; ex parte Wilson, la U. S.
All; though even in case of this kind
Court will sometimes refrain from re-
leasing a prisoner upon writ of habeas
corpus, and will remit him to his remedy
by writ of error. Higgins V. United
States, 1919 U. S. 547; Urquhart V.
Brown, POS Z. S. 179. But no Court
may properly release a prisoner under
conviction of sentence of another Court
unless for wantof jurisdiction of the
cause or person or for some other mat
ter rendering its proceedings void.
Where Court has jurisdiction, mere
errors which have been committed in
the course of the proceedings can not
be corrected upon a writ of habeas
corpus, which may not in this manner
usurp the functions of a writ of error.
Elk parte Parks, 90 U. S. IS; ex parte
Siebold, supra, 375; ex parte Yarbrough,
421; in re Delgado, 14O L. S. $50;
As, 50, 63; Andrews V. Swartz, 156 Z.
S. PIP, 276; Higgins v. United States,
supra; Feits V Murphy, POI I. S. 1913;
Valentino V. Mercer, POI e. S. 49,
These well-settled principles are de-
cisive of the case before US. Disquali
fcations of grand jurors do not destroy
the jurisdiction of the Court in which
an indictment is returned, if the Court
has jurisdiction of the cause and of
the person, as the trial Court had in
tins case. Ex parte Harding, 40 u. >.
1872; in re Wood, 140 Z. S. 278; in re
Wilson, 140 U. S. SIS. See Matter of
Moran, 203 Z. S. 90, 104. The indict
ment, though voidable, if the objection
is seasonably taken, as it was in this
ease, is not void. United States V. Gale,
100 U. S. So. The objection may be
waived, if it is not made at all or de-
layed too long. This is but another
form of saying that the Indictment is
a sufficient foundation for the iurisdic
ton of the Court in which it is return
ed, if jurisdiction otherwise exists. That
Court has the authority to decide all
questions concerning the constitution,
organization and qualification of the
grand jury, and if there are errors in
dealing with these questions, like all
other errors of law committed in the
course of the proceedings, they can only
be corrected by writ of error.
Judgment affirmed