In re Greenwald

• Decision Date: 18 November 1896
• Parties: In re GREENWALD.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California

77 F. 590

In re GREENWALD.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. California.

November 18, 1896

Crandall & Bull, for petitioner.

Samuel Knight, Asst. U.S. Atty., for respondent.

ROSS Circuit Judge.

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this case alleges that the petitioner, Louis Greenwald, is imprisoned in the California state prison, in charge of W. E. Hale, the warden thereof, under judgment and commitment thereon of the district court of the United States for the Northern district of California. Annexed to and made a part of the petition is a copy of the commitment. The commitment commands the marshal of the district to take and keep and safely deliver the said Louis Greenwald into the custody of the keeper or warden or other officer in charge of the state prison at San Quentin Marin county, Cal., forthwith, and further commands the said keeper and warden and other officer in charge of the said prison to receive from the marshal the said Louis Greenwald and keep and imprison him therein, 'for a term of six years, and until each and every and all of said fines be paid, or until he be discharged by due process of law'; the commitment previously reciting that whereas, at the February, 1894, term of the district court for the Northern district of California, held at the court room thereof, in the city and county of San Francisco, on the 19th day of May, 1894, Louis Greenwald was convicted of 'conspiracy, smuggling opium, etc., committed on the 20th day of May, the 7th day of August, the 25th day of September 1893, at the city and county of San Francisco, and within the state and Northern district of California, and within the jurisdiction of said court'; and further reciting that 'whereas, on the 5th day of June, A.D. 1894, being a day in the said term of said court, said Louis Greenwald was, for said offenses, of which he stood convicted, as aforesaid, by the judgment of said court, ordered that on the first count of the indictment he pay a fine of two thousand dollars ($2,000), and be imprisoned for the term of two years, to date from June 5, 1894, and, in default of the payment of the said fine of two thousand dollars, that he be further imprisoned until said fine be paid, or until he be otherwise released by due process of law; and further ordered that on the fourth count of said indictment he pay a fine of two thousand dollars ($2,000), and be imprisoned for the term of two years, and in default of the payment of the said fine of $2,000, that he be further imprisoned until said fine be paid, or until he be otherwise released by due process of law; and further ordered that the imprisonment of the said Louis Greenwald upon the judgment of imprisonment on the fourth count of the indictment commence upon the expiration of the sentence upon the first count of the indictment; and further ordered that on the eleventh count of said indictment he pay a fine of two thousand dollars ($2,000), and be imprisoned for the term of two years, and, in default of the payment of said fine of $2,000 that he be further imprisoned until said fine be paid, or until he be otherwise released by due process of law; and further ordered that the imprisonment of the said Louis Greenwald upon the judgment of imprisonment upon the eleventh count of the indictment commence upon the expiration of the sentence upon the fourth count of the indictment; and further ordered that the judgments of the imprisonment be executed upon the said Louis Greenwald until the other or further order of the court, by imprisonment in the state prison of the state of California at San Quentin, Marin county, California.'

The alleged illegality of the imprisonment of the petitioner according to his petition and the argument of his counsel, consists in this: (1) That his imprisonment has continued ever since June 5, 1894, a period of more than two years, and that there is no authority of law for a longer period of imprisonment than two years for the offense for which the petitioner was sentenced. (2) That the petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment by the district court for the Northern district of California, 'on three separate counts of the indictment against him, of conspiracy, smuggling opium, etc., to wit, on first, fourth, and eleventh counts of said indictment, as follows: On the first count to pay a fine of $2,000, and to be imprisoned for two years, to date from June 5, 1894, and, in default of the payment of said $2,000 fine, then to be further imprisoned until said fine was paid, or until otherwise released by due process of law; on the fourth count to pay a fine of $2,000, and to be imprisoned for two years, and, in default of the payment of said fine, to be further imprisoned until said fine be paid, or until otherwise released by due process of law, and that the imprisonment on the fourth count begin on the expiration of the sentence on the first count; and on the eleventh count to pay a fine of $2,000, and to be imprisoned for two years, and, in default of the payment of said fine, to be further imprisoned until said fine be paid, or until otherwise released by due process of law, and that the imprisonment on the eleventh count begin on the expiration of the sentence on the fourth count; and also to be imprisoned for the term of six years, and until each and every and all of said fines be paid, or until he be discharged by due process of law; and that said sentences are, and each of them is, uncertain and indefinite, and dependent upon undefined contingencies; and it cannot be ascertained from the sentence on the fourth and eleventh counts of said indictment when said sentences, or either of them, begin or end, or when the six years' term of imprisonment begins or ends.' (3) That the imprisonment of the petitioner is illegal in that he was sentenced and has been imprisoned beyond the maximum time fixed by law, and that he has been already imprisoned for a longer period than that allowed by law. (4) That his imprisonment is illegal in that the commitment does not show that the petitioner was convicted of any crime. (5) That his imprisonment is illegal in that the judgment of the district court sentencing the petitioner to imprisonment does not show that he was guilty of any offense for which he can be legally sentenced to any imprisonment. The petition also alleges 'that the cause or pretense of such imprisonment, according to the best knowledge and belief of the said ...