People ex rel. Nagel v. Heider

• Decision Date: 21 February 1907
• Citation: 225 Ill. 347,80 N.E. 291
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. NAGEL v. HEIDER et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

225 Ill. 347

80 N.E. 291

PEOPLE ex rel. NAGEL

v.HEIDER et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 21, 1907.

Application of William Nagel for a writ of habeas corpus directed to W. George Heider and another, sheriffs. Relator discharged.Adair Pleasants and H. A. Weld, for relator.

W. H. Stead, Atty. Gen., and John K. Scott, State's Atty., for respondent.

CARTWRIGHT, J.

On June 21, 1906, a writ of habeas corpus was issued out of this court upon the petition of William Nagel against W. George Heider, sheriff of Rock Island county, and Bruce H. Stiers, sheriff of Henry county, to inquire into the cause of a detention of the relator alleged by him to be illegal. The writ was served and returns were made by the defendants on September 22, 1906. On October 10, 1906, the counsel for the relator moved that the cause be set for hearing and oral argument on October 15, 1906, and that they have leave to file a typewritten brief, for the reason that the relator was unable to pay the cost of printing the brief and argument in his behalf, as required by the rules of the court. Upon the representations made by counsel both motions were allowed, the rule requiring briefs and arguments to be printed and to be filed at or before the oral argument was waived, and counsel for the relator were given leave to argue the case orally and thereafter to file a typewritten brief. The Attorney General filed his printed brief and argument on October 11th, and the cause was argued orally on October 15th and submitted for decision. Upon consideration of the oral arguments of counsel for the respective parties and the printed brief and argument of the Attorney General, we determined to discharge the relator from further imprisonment or detention by reason of the indictment for the crime of murder returned against him by the grand jury of Rock Island county on January 11, 1906, and announced our decision and entered judgment accordingly, but the judgment was not to affect or interfere with his detention by reason of other indictments against him. It was then stated that an opinion would be filed thereafter giving the reasons of the court for the decision.

The prayer of the relator for his discharge having been granted, his counsel did not file anything that could be termed a brief under the leave granted, but afterward, on November 10, 1906, filed with the clerk a single sheet of a few typewritten sentences, which did not meet or discuss the different points involved in the case or the authorities or arguments presented by the Attorney General. This, perhaps, is not cause for surprise, but was the natural result of the indulgence given by the court. It demonstrates, however, both the necessity of rules for the orderly, proper, and intelligent transaction of the business of the court, as well as the propriety of adhering to the rules and denying the applications so frequently made for a waiver of the rules in particular cases which are exceptional in their nature, as this was. Having depended upon the filing of a brief containing the points and authorities presented on the oral argument on behalf of the relator, the mere recollection of such argument is now of little or no aid in stating our views.

The facts are as follows: On August 5, 1905, the relator, William Nagel, was taken into custody by the sheriff of Rock Island county by virtue of a mittimus issued by the coroner of said county committing the relator for the murder of Carl Brady. At the September term, 1905, of the circuit court of that county the relator was indicted for that crime. Not having been tried at a term commencing within four months after his commitment, he applied to the court to be set at liberty, in pursuance of section 18 of division 13 of the Criminal Code. Hurd's Rev. St. 1905, p. 746. The court heard the application, and, upon a consideration of the facts, the cause of the delay, and the diligence exerted on the part of the people, decided that the relator was entitled to his discharge, and entered an order on January 10, 1906, that he be discharged from imprisonment and the custody of the sheriff and be set at liberty. He was not set at liberty, but a new indictment was procured against him for the same crime, and was returned into court on the next day, and from that time he was restrained of his liberty and retained in imprisonment by virtue of the second indictment. Afterward, at the May term, 1906, indictments were returned against the relator for the crimes of robbery, burglary, and larceny. On his motion a change of venue was taken to the circuit court of Henry county, and he was transferred to the custody of Bruce H. Stiers, sheriff of Henry county, who detained him by virtue of the second indictment for the same...