Ex parte Collins
| Decision Date | 18 August 1906 |
| Docket Number | 13,591. |
| Citation | 151 F. 358 |
| Parties | Ex parte COLLINS. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
George D. Collins, in proper.
This is an application made to me, as judge of the above-entitled court, by George D. Collins for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Section 755 of the Revised Statutes (U.S Comp. St. 1901, p. 593) provides
And the rule is that the writ need not be issued, 'if it appear upon the showing made by the petitioner, that if brought into court, and the cause of his commitment inquired into, he would be remanded to prison. ' Ex parte Terry, 128 U.S 289, 9 Sup.Ct. 77, 32 L.Ed. 405; Ex parte Murray (C.C.) 66 F 297; In re King (C.C.) 51 F. 434.
Upon consideration of all the matters alleged in the complaint or petition, constituting the present application, I am of the opinion that applicant upon his own showing is not entitled to the issuance of the writ. It appears from the complaint or petition herein: That, on July 30, 1906, there was pending in department 4 of the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco a proceeding, wherein this petitioner sought to be released from imprisonment in the county jail of the city and county of San Francisco, under a judgment theretofore made and entered in the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco, by which he was convicted of the crime of perjury, and adjudged to be punished therefor by imprisonment in the state prison of the state of California at San Quentin, for the term of 14 years; that in that proceeding the petitioner sought his release, upon the ground that his prosecution upon said charge of perjury, and the judgment of the court therein, were in violation of the treaty of extradition then existing between the United States and Great Britain, and of section 5275 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3596), and of section 1 of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States; that upon the hearing of said petition for a writ of habeas corpus in department 4 of the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco, the court gave judgment discharging the said writ of habeas corpus, and remanded the petitioner; and, in doing so, decided adversely to the petitioner all of the federal questions therein involved; that thereupon there was allowed, issued, served and filed in favor of the petitioner, a writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States to the said superior court; that the judge presiding in department 4 of said superior court, made an order, allowing such writ of error the same to operate as a supersedeas, and said court made its further order 'that bail be, and the same is, hereby fixed on said writ of error in the sum of $10,000'; that thereafter, on August 13, 1906, the judge of said superior court 'did, ex parte and on his own motion, arbitrarily make an order...
To continue reading
Request your trial