In re Christian

• Citation: 82 F. 885
• Parties: In re CHRISTIAN.
• Decision Date: 03 October 1897
• Court: United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Western District of Arkansas

82 F. 885

In re CHRISTIAN.

United States Circuit Court, W.D. Arkansas.

October 3, 1897

Winchester & Martin and Tom W. Neal, for petitioner.

W. J Horton, U.S. Dist. Atty.

ROGERS District Judge.

The petitioner heretofore sued out from this court a writ of habeas corpus against J. P. Grady, United States marshal for the Central district of the Indian Territory. On the hearing he was discharged, but without prejudice to the right of the United States to take any lawful measures to have the petitioner sentenced in accordance with law upon the verdict of guilty against him, or to correct the judgment, if the same was, by misprision of the clerk, erroneously entered. 82 F. 199. Immediately upon his release the United States attorney for the Central district of the Indian Territory caused to be filed before Stephen Wheeler, United States commissioner in this district, a copy of an indictment found and duly returned by the grand jury of the Central district of the Indian Territory, and filed in the United States court at Antlers, in said district and territory, whereupon said commissioner issued a warrant for the arrest of said petitioner, and committed him to jail, under section 1014 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, to be held for trial at Antlers, in the Indian Territory. Immediately upon his commitment to the United States jail at this place by S F. Stahl, the marshal of the Western district of Arkansas petitioner sued out of this court this writ of habeas corpus returnable forthwith, against the said marshal of the Western district of Arkansas. The petitioner alleges that he is unlawfully held by S. F. Stahl, in the jurisdiction of this court, by virtue of a warrant issued by Stephen Wheeler, a United States commissioner; that at the May term of 1897 of the United States court for the Central district of the Indian Territory, at Antlers, he was indicted for perjury, and was tried and convicted, and sentenced by said court 'to be imprisoned in the Detroit house of correction, at Detroit, Michigan, and to pay a fine of one dollar and costs of this action; that the proceedings under which the warrant of arrest was issued, and under which he is held, are based on the said indictment upon which he has been tried, convicted, and sentenced, and that the warrant under which he is held is illegal, for the reason that he has been tried, convicted, and sentenced on this indictment on which the warrant was issued; and that his detention is in violation of the laws and constitution of the United States. Upon service being made upon the marshal, he may return as follows: That 'he detains the said petitioner, William S. Christian, under and by virtue of the warrant alleged in the petition, and sets out a copy thereof. ' He further states that in the United States court for the Central district of the Indian Territory, sitting at Antlers, at the May term, 1897, and on the 17th day of May, 1897, an indictment was returned against the said petitioner, charging him with perjury, and sets out a copy of the indictment; that on the 19th day of said May he was tried and convicted as charged, and thereupon was remanded to the custody of the marshal to await final sentence (and sets out a certified transcript of the proceedings and orders made in that court); that on the 20th of May, 1897, the court sentenced petitioner to be imprisoned in the house of correction at Detroit, Mich., for three years, and to pay a fine to the United States of one dollar, together with the costs of prosecution (and sets out a copy of said sentence): that thereafter a mittimus on said sentence was issued out of said court, commanding the marshal of said district to receive, safely keep, and convey the said Christian to the house of correction as aforesaid; that said petitioner afterwards applied to this court for a writ of habeas corpus to obtain his discharge from the custody of the said marshal under said mittimus, alleging the sentence and mittimus to be void; that this court made an order discharging the said petitioner from the custody of said marshal under said mittimus, and recited in said order that the discharge would be without prejudice to the right of the United States to take any lawful measures to have the petitioner sentenced according to law upon the verdict against him (and sets out a copy of that order. He further states that on the . . . day of June, 1897, there was filed before said Stephen Wheeler, United States circuit court commissioner for the Western district of Arkansas, a certified copy of said indictment upon which said warrant was issued, and thereupon a motion for a warrant of removal of the said petitioner to the said Central district of the Indian Territory for further proceedings in the said United States court for said Central district of the Indian Territory upon said indictment was filed and pending in this court. The respondent further shows: That on the 19th day of June, 1897, there was issued out of the United States court for the Central district of the Indian Territory a temporary commitment for the said Christian upon said order so made as aforesaid by said court on the 19th day of May, 1897, remanding the said petitioner to the custody of said marshal for said Central district to await final sentence upon said verdict, a certified copy of which was attached thereto, and that further, on the said 19th day of June, 1893, there was issued out of said court for said Central district a bench warrant for the arrest of the said William S. Christian (and attached a copy of said bench warrant). That on the 13th of July, 1897, and before the filing of said return of the the marshal, the United States district attorney for the Central district of the Indian Territory filed a motion in this court in which he states that at the May term, 1897, of said court for the Central District of the Indian Territory, sitting at Antlers, petitioner was duly tried by a jury upon an indictment for the crime of perjury, which indictment had been previously found in said court, said court having competent jurisdiction of said offense and of the person of said petitioner, and, upon a trail upon said indictment, was found guilty as alleged; that at the same term of said court he was sentenced by the court to imprisonment in the Detroit house of correction, at Detroit, Mich., for the term of three years, and to pay a fine of one dollar, and all costs of said cause; that on the . . . day of June,1897, said petitioner filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus before this court, which said writ was by the court granted, and said prisoner discharged from the custody of said J. P. Grady, United States marshal for the Central district of the Indian Territory, but without prejudice to the right of the United States to have the petitioner sentenced in accordance with the law upon the verdict against him, all of which more fully appears in the record and proceedings herein. And he prayed in his motion that this court make an order remanding the petitioner to the custody of the marshal of the Western district of Arkansas, and for his removal to the Central district of the Indian Territory, to be dealt with by the United States court for the Central district of the Indian Territory in conformity with the law upon the verdict against him. Upon the trial of the cause before the court the petitioner introduced the receipt of the clerk of the United States court for the Central district of the Indian Territory for one dollar, in payment of the fine assessed against him on the 20th of May, 1897, and a complete transcript of the record of the Untied States court for the Central district of the Indian Territory in the perjury case referred to was offered in evidence, and also the record of the previous habeas corpus case. There is really no dispute about the facts in this case, and they sufficiently appear, from what has already been stated supra, more fully than is ordinarily necessary.

Petitioner now insists that section 1014 of the Revised Statutes of the United States applies only to persons who are removed from one jurisdiction to another for trial, and that, he having already been tried, the commissioner had no power to commit him under that section of the statute, and that this court has no authority of law to make an order for his removal to the Central district of the Indian Territory to await the sentence of said court upon the verdict heretofore rendered against him. On the other hand, the United States insists that whether there is authority, under section 1014 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, for his removal to the Indian Territory, or not, petitioner now being before the court of habeas corpus, under section 761 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, and the court being advised of the fact that he has been convicted of the crime of perjury in another jurisdiction, and has not been sentenced as the law directs, it should, under the latter section, make an order requiring the marshal of this district to surrender petitioner to the proper authorities in the Indian Territory to await the judgment of that court. Both questions have been exhaustively argued and carefully considered.

For a hundred years the United States have had the power to apprehend and punish offenders against their laws. It is indeed remarkable that at this day the method of apprehending and removing persons who have been convicted of crime, and subsequently escape, either before or after sentence, into another district to the district where they have been tried and convicted, should still be in doubt; but a careful research has not disclosed a single reported case decisive of the question by any court. Cases have been found and action had by the department...