Ex parte Ah Kee
| Decision Date | 06 July 1895 |
| Docket Number | 1,443. |
| Parties | Ex parte AH KEE et al. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Application for writ of habeas corpus by Ah Kee and others. Granted.
D. S Truman, for petitioners.
R. M Beatty, Atty. Gen., for the State.
On application of the petitioners, duly made, a writ of habeas corpus was duly issued and directed to D. J. Hadley, sheriff of Humboldt county, and made returnable before this court. On the return of the writ, the following facts, substantially are disclosed, to wit: Upon the preliminary examination of the petitioners, charged with committing the crime of grand larceny, a justice of the peace of Humboldt county ordered that they be held to answer, and they were committed to the custody of the sheriff. Subsequently, the petitioners were taken before Hon. A. E. Cheney, district judge of the district court of the Second judicial district in and for Humboldt county, in obedience to the commands of a writ of habeas corpus issued by him. Upon the hearing of the matter on the 18th day of June, 1895, the judge held that the warrant of commitment was wholly insufficient to authorize their detention by the sheriff. It appearing to the judge that the petitioners are guilty of a criminal offense, he committed them to the custody of the sheriff for examination before him, and set the 15th day of July, 1895, for such examination. The petitioners then and there, by their attorney, objected to the adjournment of the examination to such late day, and on the next day (the 19th day of June) applied for a modification of the order, fixing July 15th for the examination, so that it might be proceeded with on the 22d day of June. The application was denied, on the ground that the judge had prior official engagements. The petitioners objected, and excepted to the ruling denying their request. The petitioners are now held and detained by the sheriff under the order of the judge committing them for examination before him to be held on the 15th day of July, Is their detention illegal? We are of opinion that it is, and that they must be discharged from custody.
When an accused person is held by a judge for examination before him under the provisions of the habeas corpus act, he is invested with such powers only as are conferred on other magistrates in matters of preliminary examinations. A person accused of and arrested for crime is entitled to prompt examination by the spirit and letter of the General Statutes, as will appear from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Justice's Court of Carson Tp., Ormsby County
...a loss of jurisdiction to proceed with the case. See Lovelace v. United States, 357 F.2d 306 (5th Cir. 1966). The case of Ex parte Ah Kee, 22 Nev. 374, 40 P. 879 (1895), heavily relied upon by the petitioners, is inapposite because Ah Kee was deprived of his freedom, which is not the situat......
-
Ex parte McGee
...consent or on motion of the defendant." In this connection, our attention is directed to the language of this court found in Ex parte Ah Kee, 22 Nev. 374, 40 P. 879. was a case in which the hearing was postponed for 27 days, during which period the writ of habeas corpus was procured. Such a......