People ex rel. Palmer v. Adams

• Decision Date: 20 February 1928
• Docket Number: 12035.
• Citation: 83 Colo. 321,264 P. 1090
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. PALMER et al. v. ADAMS, Governor, et al.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

264 P. 1090

83 Colo. 321

PEOPLE ex rel. PALMER et al. v. ADAMS, Governor, et al.

No. 12035.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

February 20, 1928

Rehearing Denied March 12, 1928.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus by the People of the State of Colorado, on the relation of Frank L. Palmer and others against William H. Adams, Governor of State, and others.

Petition denied.

Guy D. Duncan, of Denver, for petitioners.

CAMPBELL J.

Frank L. Palmer and others have filed in this court their petition for a writ of habeas corpus, naming as the respondentsWilliam H. Adams, Governor, and Paul P. Newlon, Adjutant General, of the state of Colorado, wherein petitioners allege that they have been unlawfully imprisoned by the state officers, and ask for the issuance of the writ to release them from custody.

We decline to take jurisdiction for the following reasons: The case of Wheeler v. Northern Colorado Irrigation Co., 9 Colo 248, 11 P. 103, in an opinion by Mr. Justice Helm, is perhaps, the principal case relating to original jurisdiction of our Supreme Court.The learned judge said, among other things, that the Supreme Court is primarily and essentially a court of appellate jurisdiction, and only in questions publici juris in which the sovereign state as a whole is concerned, and where adequate relief may not be afforded by the inferior courts of original jurisdiction will the Supreme Court take jurisdiction under its limited original power, and such writs in general in this court should be put only to prerogative uses.The petition before us is unnecessarily prolix and contains much matter that is foreign to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.Speaking generally, such a petition should contain, in substance merely that the petitioner is unlawfully restrained of his liberty.The pleading of evidentiary matter and, as in this case, the history of the pending coal strike in this state, should not be inserted.Our Constitution provides (section 21, art. 2 that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall never be suspended, unless, when in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.When a proper petition for the writ is filed in our district courts, the writ is issued or a rule to show cause is entered.When, however, an application for the writ is made in the Supreme Court invoking its original jurisdiction, the writ may be denied in the first instance if adequate relief may be afforded by inferior courts.The petition filed here sets forth that Frank L. Palmer, one of the petitioners here, and other persons, had previously filed a similar writ in the district court of Weld county, which was issued and upon final hearing was dismissed by the court, and the further allegation is that the trial court observed in denying relief that, if future applications of a like character were made, the decision would be the same, and therefore the petitioners here say it would be useless for them to file their petition in the district court.$We observe, in the first place, that the petitioners in the Weld countycourt might have had, by a writ of error to the Weld county judgment, a review thereof by this court, and have...