In re Le Roy

• Decision Date: 07 June 1895
• Citation: 41 P. 615,3 Okla. 322,1895 OK 16
• Parties: Ex parte LE ROY.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

41 P. 615

3 Okla. 322, 1895 OK 16

Ex parte LE ROY.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

June 7, 1895

Syllabus by the Court.

1. When a crime is charged in two counts in an indictment, and the defendant is acquitted on the first count and convicted on the second, he is not entitled to discharge by habeas corpus if the trial court had jurisdiction of the person and of the crime.

2. The sufficiency of the indictment is a question of law for the trial court; and if such court errs in its conclusions the remedy is by appeal or writ of error, and not by habeas corpus. Ex parte Harlan, 27 P. 920, 1 Okl. 48; St. Okl. 1893 par. 4578.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus. Louis Le Roy, petitioner, was convicted in the district court of Logan county, and sentenced to three years in the penitentiary. Writ denied.

C. R Buckner, for petitioner.

C. A Galbraith, Atty. Gen., and A. H. Huston, Co. Atty., for the Territory.

SCOTT J.

On the 19th day of February, 1894, the petitioner, Louis Le Roy filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this court alleging: That he was unlawfully restrained of his liberty in the county jail of Logan county, Oklahoma territory, by W. W. Painter, sheriff and jailer of said county. That the pretended cause of restraint was grand larceny. That said imprisonment is illegal, in this: First. That the charge upon which the prisoner is held has been fully investigated by a court of competent jurisdiction, and a trial had, upon which this petitioner was duly acquitted of grand larceny. Second. That said petitioner says that no further proceedings under the charge upon which he is held ought to be had or taken against him, because at the September term of the district court of Logan county, Oklahoma territory, the said petitioner was put upon his trial in said court for grand larceny upon his plea of not guilty, and the jury impaneled and sworn to well and truly try said issue, and a true verdict render according to the law and the evidence, after hearing all of the evidence, the instructions as given by the court, the argument of counsel for the territory and the petitioner, returned a verdict of not guilty of said charge; that no other charge or indictment has been brought against him, nor is he held upon any other charge. Third. The court had no jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment or pass the sentence on petitioner in this case. Fourth. The judgment and sentence upon which petitioner is imprisoned is void. The petitioner therefore prayed that a writ of habeas corpus be granted him, and that he, the said Louis Le Roy, be discharged from such unlawful restraint and imprisonment, and for such other relief as...