In re West

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
Writing for the CourtWALLIN
PartiesIn re WEST.
Decision Date12 December 1901

10 N.D. 464
88 N.W. 88

In re WEST.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Dec. 12, 1901.



Syllabus by the Court.

1. Habeas corpus to obtain bail. Construing section 6 of the state constitution, and section 8446, Rev. Codes 1899, held, that in capital cases the accused is entitled to bail before trial, as a matter of absolute right, unless the proof of guilt is evident, or the presumption thereof is great.

2. Held, further, that in other capital cases bail may be granted or withheld as a matter of judicial discretion, to be exercised either by the district or the supreme court, or by the judges thereof.

3. Held, further, upon the facts here presented and for reasons stated in the opinion, that bail will not be granted in this case upon this application, either as a strict legal right or as a matter of discretion.


Application of William E. West for writ of habeas corpus. Denied.

Cochrane & Corliss, for petitioner. J. B. Wineman, State's Atty.


WALLIN, C. J.

In this proceeding the petitioner, William E. West, by his attorneys, Messrs. Cochrane & Corliss, has presented to this court a verified petition, asking that a writ of habeas corpus shall issue out of this court, directed to the sheriff of Grand Forks county, commanding him to produce before this court the body of the petitioner, and to show cause by what authority the petitioner is detained without bail, and this to the end that the petitioner be admitted to bail by this court. At the time of the presentation of said petition the state was represented by J. B. Wineman, Esq., state's attorney for Grand Forks county, and the petitioner was represented by his said attorneys, Cochrane & Corliss; whereupon it was stipulated between counsel in open court that the writ need not issue in the first instance, and that the facts and merits of the application should be presented to the court, and heard and determined by the court, upon the application for the writ, and that the evidence and matters of fact, as embodied in the petition for the writ, should be held and considered by the court in all respects as if the same had been embraced in a return made by the sheriff in response to the writ.

The uncontroverted facts, as set out in the petition as grounds for the relief which is sought by the petitioner, are as follows: Upon a warrant of arrest issued by a justice of the peace of Grand Forks county, the petitioner was arrested and brought before said justice of the peace on the 3d day of December, 1901; whereupon, after a preliminary examination of the petitioner was had before said justice of the peace, an order and finding was entered in the docket of said justice of the peace to the effect that the crime of murder had been committed in Grand Forks county, and that there was probable cause to believe that the petitioner was guilty thereof; and said finding and order also embraced the following provision: “It is therefore ordered that the defendant, W. E. West, be held to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Ford v. Dilley, No. 30938.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • February 18, 1916
    ...on the merits are not adjudications. [6][7] Such reservations are not idle. Courts of last resort make such. For instance, in West's Case, 10 N. D. 464, 88 N. W. 90, the Supreme Court of North Dakota denied an application for bail “for the time being,” and with the statement that the refusa......
  • Ford v. Dilley, 30938
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • February 18, 1916
    ...on the merits are not adjudications. Such reservations are not idle. Courts of last resort make such. For instance, in In re West, (N. D.) 88 N.W. 88, at 90, the Supreme Court of North Dakota denied an application for bail "for the time being", with the statement that the refusal is not to ......
  • City of Fargo v. Stutlien, Nos. 930026
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • September 8, 1993
    ...has noted the similarity between Art. I, Sec. 11, N.D. Const., and the corresponding California constitutional provision. In re West, 10 N.D. 464, 88 N.W. 88, 89 (1901). We also observe that the municipal court's blanket order for minimum periods of detention does not include the procedural......
  • People v. District Court In and For Adams County, No. 26671
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • December 16, 1974
    ...otherwise to us. The majority rule may well be that the granting of bail still remains discretionary with the court. See In re West, 10 N.D. 464, 88 N.W. 88 (1901); Ex parte Howell, 34 Okl.Cr. 126, 245 P. 66 (1926); State v. Toomey, 126 Vt. 123, 223 A.2d 473 (1966); Note, 39 L.R.A.,N.S., 75......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Ford v. Dilley, No. 30938.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • February 18, 1916
    ...on the merits are not adjudications. [6][7] Such reservations are not idle. Courts of last resort make such. For instance, in West's Case, 10 N. D. 464, 88 N. W. 90, the Supreme Court of North Dakota denied an application for bail “for the time being,” and with the statement that the refusa......
  • Ford v. Dilley, 30938
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • February 18, 1916
    ...on the merits are not adjudications. Such reservations are not idle. Courts of last resort make such. For instance, in In re West, (N. D.) 88 N.W. 88, at 90, the Supreme Court of North Dakota denied an application for bail "for the time being", with the statement that the refusal is not to ......
  • City of Fargo v. Stutlien, Nos. 930026
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • September 8, 1993
    ...has noted the similarity between Art. I, Sec. 11, N.D. Const., and the corresponding California constitutional provision. In re West, 10 N.D. 464, 88 N.W. 88, 89 (1901). We also observe that the municipal court's blanket order for minimum periods of detention does not include the procedural......
  • People v. District Court In and For Adams County, No. 26671
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • December 16, 1974
    ...otherwise to us. The majority rule may well be that the granting of bail still remains discretionary with the court. See In re West, 10 N.D. 464, 88 N.W. 88 (1901); Ex parte Howell, 34 Okl.Cr. 126, 245 P. 66 (1926); State v. Toomey, 126 Vt. 123, 223 A.2d 473 (1966); Note, 39 L.R.A.,N.S., 75......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT