Morita Keizo v. William Henry, No. 27

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtMoody
Citation53 L.Ed. 125,211 U.S. 146,29 S.Ct. 41
PartiesMORITA KEIZO, Plff. in Err., v. WILLIAM HENRY, High Sheriff of the Territory of Hawaii
Decision Date16 November 1908
Docket NumberNo. 27

211 U.S. 146
29 S.Ct. 41
53 L.Ed. 125
MORITA KEIZO, Plff. in Err.,

v.

WILLIAM HENRY, High Sheriff of the Territory of Hawaii.

No. 27.
Argued October 29, 1908.
Decided November 16, 1908.

Messrs. Duane E. Fox, Arthur S. Browne, and A. S. Humphreys for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Charles R. Hemenway and M. F. Prosser for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Moody delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a writ of error directed to a judgment of the supreme court of the territory of Hawaii, discharging a writ of habeas corpus and remanding the petitioner to the custody of the sheriff. The plaintiff in error was indicted for murder by a grand jury at a term of a circuit court of the territory, held in August, 1905. The grand jury was composed of sixteen members. A plea in abatement was seasonably filed, alleging that

Page 147

eight of the grand jurors were not citizens of the United States or of the territory,—a qualification prescribed by the laws of the territory. The territory joined issue on this plea. The parties then agreed upon the facts upon which it was based; namely, that the eight grand jurors questioned were citizens only by virtue of judgments of naturalization in a circuit court of the territory. The plea, with the agreed facts, raised the question of the jurisdiction of the circuit courts of the territory to naturalize aliens. Under a statute of the territory that question was certified to the supreme court, and that court held that the circuit courts of the territory had jurisdiction to naturalize, and that the grand jury possessed the necessary qualifications. Thereupon the trial judge overruled the plea in abatement, and an exception was taken. After due proceedings, plaintiff in error was found guilty as charged, and, on March 22, 1906, sentenced to death. Thereupon he prosecuted a writ of error to the supreme court of the territory, assigning, among other errors, the overruling of the plea in abatement. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed by the supreme court on October 23, 1906, and a death warrant thereupon was issued by the governor of the territory, commanding the high sheriff to execute the sentence of death on January 22, 1907. No writ of error was sued out on the foregoing judgments of the supreme court. The plaintiff in error, however, six days before the date fixed for his execution, filed a petition for habeas corpus in the supreme court of the territory, basing his claim for discharge from custody upon the same facts set forth in the plea of abatement and in the agreed statement of facts. The petition alleged that, for the reason of the disqualification of eight members of the grand jury, the indictment was void, and that the trial court was without jurisdiction to proceed against him...

To continue reading

Request your trial
51 practice notes
  • Sunal v. Large Alexander v. United States Kulick, Nos. 535
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 23 Junio 1947
    ...218 U.S. 442, 31 S.Ct. 44, 54 L.Ed. 1101, 21 Ann.Cas. 849. 10 Ex parte Harding, 120 U.S. 782, 7 S.Ct. 780, 30 L.Ed. 824; Kaizo v. Henry, 211 U.S. 146, 29 S.Ct. 41, 53 L.Ed. 125. 11 McMicking v. Schields, 238 U.S. 99, 35 S.Ct. 665, 59 L.Ed. 1220. The rule is even more strict where habeas cor......
  • Ex parte Craig, 308.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • 22 Mayo 1922
    ...v. Shine, 199 U.S. 62, 83, 25 Sup.Ct. 760, 50 L.Ed. 90; Whitney v. Dick, 202 U.S. 132, 136, 26 Sup.Ct. 584, 50 L.Ed. 963; Keizo v. Henry, 211 U.S. 146, 148, 29 Sup.Ct. 41, 53 L.Ed. 125. And see Harlan v. McGourin, 218 U.S. 442, 448, 31 Sup.Ct. 44, 47 (54 L.Ed. 1101, 21 Ann.Cas. 849), where ......
  • Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass, No. 584
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 3 Mayo 1943
    ...not affect the jurisdiction of the court. Cf. Breese v. United States, 226 U.S. 1, 10, 11, 33 S.Ct. 1, 2, 3, 57 L.Ed. 97; Kaizo v. Henry, 211 U.S. 146, 149, 29 S.Ct. 41, 42, 53 L.Ed. 125; Matter of Moran, 203 U.S. 96, 104, 27 S.Ct. 25, 26, 51 L.Ed. 105; Harlan v. McGourin, 218 U.S. 442, 451......
  • Smith v. Brough, Civ. No. 16435.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • 14 Diciembre 1965
    ...were improperly selected. See e. g. Rodriguez v. United States, 198 U.S. 156, 165, 25 S.Ct. 617, 49 L.Ed. 994 (1905); Kaizo v. Henry, 211 U.S. 146, 149, 29 S.Ct. 41, 53 L.Ed. 125 (1908). In the latter case the Supreme Court "Disqualifications of grand jurors do not destroy the jurisdic......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
51 cases
  • Sunal v. Large Alexander v. United States Kulick, Nos. 535
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 23 Junio 1947
    ...218 U.S. 442, 31 S.Ct. 44, 54 L.Ed. 1101, 21 Ann.Cas. 849. 10 Ex parte Harding, 120 U.S. 782, 7 S.Ct. 780, 30 L.Ed. 824; Kaizo v. Henry, 211 U.S. 146, 29 S.Ct. 41, 53 L.Ed. 125. 11 McMicking v. Schields, 238 U.S. 99, 35 S.Ct. 665, 59 L.Ed. 1220. The rule is even more strict where habeas cor......
  • Ex parte Craig, 308.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • 22 Mayo 1922
    ...v. Shine, 199 U.S. 62, 83, 25 Sup.Ct. 760, 50 L.Ed. 90; Whitney v. Dick, 202 U.S. 132, 136, 26 Sup.Ct. 584, 50 L.Ed. 963; Keizo v. Henry, 211 U.S. 146, 148, 29 Sup.Ct. 41, 53 L.Ed. 125. And see Harlan v. McGourin, 218 U.S. 442, 448, 31 Sup.Ct. 44, 47 (54 L.Ed. 1101, 21 Ann.Cas. 849), where ......
  • Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass, No. 584
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 3 Mayo 1943
    ...not affect the jurisdiction of the court. Cf. Breese v. United States, 226 U.S. 1, 10, 11, 33 S.Ct. 1, 2, 3, 57 L.Ed. 97; Kaizo v. Henry, 211 U.S. 146, 149, 29 S.Ct. 41, 42, 53 L.Ed. 125; Matter of Moran, 203 U.S. 96, 104, 27 S.Ct. 25, 26, 51 L.Ed. 105; Harlan v. McGourin, 218 U.S. 442, 451......
  • Smith v. Brough, Civ. No. 16435.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • 14 Diciembre 1965
    ...were improperly selected. See e. g. Rodriguez v. United States, 198 U.S. 156, 165, 25 S.Ct. 617, 49 L.Ed. 994 (1905); Kaizo v. Henry, 211 U.S. 146, 149, 29 S.Ct. 41, 53 L.Ed. 125 (1908). In the latter case the Supreme Court "Disqualifications of grand jurors do not destroy the jurisdic......
  • 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