Eureka County Bank Habeas Corpus Cases
| Decision Date | 09 September 1912 |
| Docket Number | 1,978,1,989,1,991. |
| Citation | 126 P. 655,35 Nev. 80 |
| Parties | EUREKA COUNTY BANK HABEAS CORPUS CASES. EX PARTE SMITH ET AL. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Applications by Oscar J. Smith and W. E. Griffin, by Oscar J. Smith, W. E Griffin, H. F. Golding, and C. H. Gorman, and by John Hancock for writs of habeas corpus Petitioners discharged.
James Glynn and Oscar J. Smith, for petitioners.
Cleveland H. Baker, Atty. Gen., Thos. J. McParlan, Dist. Atty., of Eureka County, Mack, Green, Brown & Heer, and Lewers & Henderson, for respondent.
Delay in the determination of this case is regretted; but as the members of the court have been occupied with matters of greater public concern, and the petitioners have been at liberty on bail, it has been deemed best to wait until careful consideration could be given to the numerous important questions involved. An examination of decisions relating to habeas corpus indicates that many of them have been rendered hurriedly and without taking time for careful consideration of the reasons and statutes which ought to control.
The petitioners Oscar J. Smith and W. E. Griffin were arrested in Washoe county by the sheriff of Eureka county, under warrants of arrest issued by the justice of the peace at Eureka charging the commission of felonies in Eureka county. Smith and Griffin applied to District Judge Moran, in Washoe county, for writs of habeas corpus, and were by him admitted to bail pending the determination of their applications. Thereafter, and before any final decision had been rendered by the district judge, they filed with the clerk of the district court purported written dismissals of their petitions for writ of habeas corpus, and under an order of their bail for their arrest surrendered themselves to the bailiff of the Supreme Court and applied for writs of habeas corpus before this tribunal, and obtained here an alternative order temporarily restraining the district court from deciding the cases brought before it and sought to be dismissed.
Three complaints and three warrants of arrest accompanying them issued by the justice of the peace of Eureka township, in the county of Eureka, charged, respectively, the commission in that county of the crimes of felonious receipt of money on deposit in an insolvent banking corporation, the felonious assenting to the reception of deposits in an insolvent banking corporation by the directors of such bank while having knowledge of its insolvency, and the felonious subscribing to false papers, with intent to deceive the bank examiner. Later Oscar J. Smith, W. E. Griffin, H. F. Golding, and C. H. Gorman were arrested in Washoe county, and John Hancock, Sr., in Esmeralda county, all by the superintendent of the state police and officers acting under him, on bench warrants issued under the following indictments found by the grand jury of Eureka county, charging offenses alleged to have been committed in that county as follows:
Against Oscar J. Smith, W. E. Griffin, and H. F. Golding for publishing false statement on July 31, 1909, under act of 1909; against Oscar J. Smith, W. E. Griffin, and C. H. Gorman for publishing false statement on December 4, 1909, under act of 1909; against Oscar J. Smith, W. E. Griffin, and C. H. Gorman for publishing false statement February 6, 1910, under act of 1909; against Oscar J. Smith, Bert L. Smith, W. E. Griffin, John Hancock, Sr., and H. F. Golding for acceptance of checks, to wit, money on deposit, without interest, November 8, 1909; against Oscar J. Smith, Bert L. Smith, W. E. Griffin, John Hancock, Sr., and C. H. Gorman for acceptance of checks, to wit, money on deposit, without interest, March 14, 1910; against Oscar J. Smith, Bert L. Smith, W. E. Griffin, John Hancock, Sr., and C. H. Gorman for acceptance of certain checks, to wit, money on deposit, without interest, March 8, 1910; against Oscar J. Smith, Bert L. Smith, W. E. Griffin, John Hancock, Sr., and C. H. Gorman for acceptance of certain checks, to wit, money on deposit, March 15, 1910; against Oscar J. Smith, Bert L. Smith, W. E. Griffin, and John Hancock, Sr., for conniving at the reception of deposits, to wit, certain checks or money in an insolvent incorporated bank, by the directors thereof, March 21, 1910; against Oscar J. Smith, Bert L. Smith, W. E. Griffin, and John Hancock, Sr., for assent to the reception of deposit in an insolvent incorporated bank, by the directors thereof, March 19, 1910; and against C. H. Gorman for acceptance of money, to wit, check on deposit, without interest, March 21, 1910.
On behalf of petitioners Smith and Griffin, it is claimed that the purported dismissals filed by them in the district court, and their arrest and detention by the bailiff of the Supreme Court under the order of their bail, operated to place them under arrest by virtue of the original arrests made in Reno by the sheriff of Eureka county under the warrants issued by the justice of the peace. They allege that the arrests under the warrants issued by the committing magistrate were illegal, for the following reasons: That the justice of the peace of Eureka township had no jurisdiction to issue the warrants, because petitioners were not in, nor within 50 miles of, the boundaries of Eureka county at any of the times mentioned in the complaints upon which the warrants purport to be based, or within 60 days prior to or since any of said times. "And petitioners further allege that the courts of Eureka county, Nevada, are without jurisdiction or power to try or examine or determine the offenses alleged or attempted to be alleged or charged or stated in any of the pretended warrants or complaints; * * * and, further, because the petitioners, or either of them, had no authority at any time to close the Eureka County Bank named in the complaint upon which the warrants were issued; and for the further reason that the pretended offenses attempted to be set forth in said pretended complaint and warrants were not triable in said county of Eureka;" that the banking corporation mentioned was closed, by order of the Nevada State Banking Board, on the 22d day of March, 1910, and that such closing was without due process of law, and without any authority or right whatever, by reason of the fact that the act of the Legislature of the state of Nevada under which said board pretended to act (Stats. 1908-09, pp. 251-267) is unconstitutional, null and void, "because the Eureka County Bank is a corporation duly organized and existing under an act of the Legislature of the state of Nevada entitled 'An act to provide for the formation of corporations for certain purposes,' approved March 10, 1865 [Laws 1865, c. 111]," and petitioners deny the right of the Legislature to bring the said Eureka County Bank within the terms of an act entitled "An act to define and regulate the business of banking, creating and providing for a bank examiner and the examination and supervision of banking corporations, and for the appointment of receivers in certain cases, fixing the penalties for the violation thereof, and other matters relating thereto," approved March 24, 1909; "that if the above-mentioned pretended offense was at all committed the same is not triable in said county of Eureka." They further deny "that they, or either of them, in any manner received the deposit mentioned in the pretended complaint of Florio (Exhibit B) on the date named in said pretended complaint, or on any other date, or otherwise, or at all, and deny that they, or either of them, in any manner, or at all, assented to the reception of the deposit mentioned in said pretended complaint of Florio, or of the deposit mentioned in the pretended complaint of Hintze (Exhibit D), in or by said bank mentioned in said pretended complaints, or in or by any bank in said Eureka county or elsewhere, and further deny that said bank was insolvent at any of the times named in said complaints, or at any time prior thereto, and deny that petitioners, or either of them, had knowledge of such insolvency; and petitioners allege that neither of them has any knowledge whatever that any such deposits, as mentioned in said pretended complaints, were ever received by or in said bank."
They allege that the offenses attempted to be charged in two of the complaints (Exhibits B and D) are based upon the act of the Legislature entitled "An act making it a felony for any banker, or any officer, director, cashier, teller, managing member, manager, clerk, person, party or agent of any bank, banking corporation, association, firm or person engaged in banking, brokerage, exchange or deposit business to receive, or accept or assent or be accessory to or permit the reception of deposits of money, currency or valuable paper, in banking and other institutions, knowing the same to be insolvent; providing a punishment therefor and establishing a rule of evidence in connection therewith"--approved March 13, 1909 (Laws 1909, c. 92). They assert that the act is null and void, for the reason that it is impossible to give it any precise and intelligible meaning or application in the circumstances under which it was apparently intended to operate; and that, having no judicial certainty as to its meaning, being penal in its operation, courts are not at liberty to supply any deficiency necessary to make the statute certain.
They further allege that this act is in contravention of the provisions of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, that "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection...
To continue reading
Request your trial