Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1908-02-04
IMPORTANT CASE
NOW DECIDED
Ruling of Lower Court Affecting
Habeas Corpus Reversed
BY Supreme Court.
NOT GO BEHIND JUDGMENT.
Opinion Says District Judge Can Only
Review to Ascertain il Proceed
ings Were Regular.

An important opinion was handed
down this morning by the supreme
court 1t relates to the matter of a
district judge reviewing evidence in
| habeas corpus proceedings and holds
that the district Judge has not the right
to go behind the judgment of com
hitting magistrate. except to ascertain
If the proceedings were regular and il
the committing magistrate had juris-
dlction in the case. The opinion also
rules that an appeal taken by the
sheriff in case of this kind is not in
any sense an appeal by the state. The
Judgment of G. G. Armstrong in the
case is reversed
HISTORY or CASE.
Emil Winovitch was arrested in June,
1907 charged with the murder of an
other Austrian in riot of Austrians
over religious questions at Bingham
Junction. He was brought into the
court of Justice of the Peace Joseph j.
Williams, charged in a complaint drawn
in due form with murder He was ar
raigned and given a preliminary hear
ing all evidence showing that the ac-
cused was involved In the case and
that the charge was well founded. on
June is of the same year he was bound
over to await trial in the Third distric,
court and commitment issued direct
ing Sheriff c. Frank Emery to confine
him in the county jail to await trial, lit
having been shown to the court that
murder had been committed and that
there was reasonable ground for believ-
ing that WinoVtch was guilty of the
crime.
PETITION ENTERED.
On June 20 Winovitch entered a ne
tition in the Third district court for
the issuance of a writ OF habeas corpus,
citing that he was unlawNilly re-
strained of his liberty. Sheriff Emery
produced the prisoner in court, and to
show his authority for combining him
IL Jail also produced the commitment
duly certified by the committing mag
istrate.
SHERIFF. APPEALS,
The opinion recites that in court,
Judge Armstrong examined into the
| evidence upon which Winovltch was
bound over and ordered the prisoner
restored to his liberty, holding the evil
dence adduced at the preliminary hear
| ing insufficient to warrant holding him
| for the offense. Sheriff Emery took an
appeal
The respondents resisted the appeal
and moved its dismissal upon the
ground that It was being taken by the
| state and that no appeal lies from ha-
| beas corpus proceedings because the or
| der of discharge is not in any sense a
! final judgment.
PROCEEDINGS NOT CRIMINAL.
The opinion OF the supreme court
| holds that habeas corpus proceedings
are not criminal in their nature. but are
civil, being an effort to force the recoe-
| milton of civil right An opinion by
chief Justice Waite of the United
| States supreme court Is cited I'm this
| connection. the opinion being found in
| los u. s., eX parte Tom Tong. Other
authorities along the same line are add
| ed. Haoeas corpus proceedings, the
! opinion states, belong to the class
known to the law as special proceedings
and are statutory proceedings although
the origin may be traced to the common
law. There is provision made In which
| 1t is designated that the person re-
| strained of his liberty shall appear as
| plaintiff ana the person against whom
the writ is asked to be directed shall
appear as the defendant. 1t is not an
| hppNtAi " Nllt SAiltI inc OPINION nOl0S,
| and dismissal may not be obtained on
| this ground.
With regard to the second ground, the
| opinion states, there Is a conflict OF
| opinions and in the opinion the conflict
Ing opinions are oYerruled and the ap-
peal is not to be dismissed upon this
ground.
The opinion thon makes the Issue on
the question as TO whether the dis
trict court had q right to Inquire into
the evidence adduced at the preliminary
hearing in the babeas corpus proceed
Ing. The opinion states that the gem
eral rule is that the district court in
Il case OF this sort must confine it's ex-
| animation TO the question OF jurisdic-
tion, that the proceedings were regular
and that the magistrate acted within
his Jurisdiction. In case all require
ments are In accord with the provisions
relating 10 these matters, then the
prisoner must not be released.
EXCERPT FROM OPINION.
In conclusion the opinion recItes:
There Is no statutory authority In this
state whereby a court or Judge, or ha.
beas corpus, may review the evlIancC
adduced before magistrate In support
of the criminal charge for the purpose
Of determining whether the evidence
was either competent or sufficient e
NfAAA"lAA AllN Alh bAoAlilt III HOiulllk lIt
accused for trial In the district courl
ana In committing him for that pur-
pose Further. the opinion states
The district court went beyond wha'
the authorities justify. Where the rec
ord, certified to by the magistrate, az
firmatiyely shows what we have stated
the record In this case discloses, ant
there IS no attack ON the truthfulnesi
OF the facts recited I'm the record, IL
court Is powerloss TO go behind tn,
judgment of the magistrate"
WlnoYitch Is now believed TO be on
of the country, though he IL charge,
with murder. Now the supreme cour
says that he should be In jail nov
awaiting trial. Thus far the opinion
cannot affect his case, but II does es
tnblsh precedent IN matter of thi
kind and decides for the first time
case where the facts have been as the
were In this case.