State v. DeCker (Ex parte Decker)

• Decision Date: 20 June 1906
• Citation: 108 N.W. 157,77 Neb. 33
• Parties: EX PARTE DECKER. STATE v. DECKER.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

77 Neb. 33

108 N.W. 157

EX PARTE DECKER.STATE

v.DECKER.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

June 20, 1906.

Syllabus by the Court.

The procedure to obtain a review in this court of a final order made by a district court, or judge, in a proceeding in habeas corpus, must be such as is required to be followed for a like purpose in civil actions. Sections 483 and 515 of the Criminal Code are not applicable thereto.

Commissioners' Opinion. Department No. 1. Error to District Court, Lancaster County; Holmes, Judge.

In the matter of the application of John F. Decker for a writ of habeas corpus. From an order discharging the applicant, the State brings error. Dismissed.James L. Caldwell, F. M. Tyrrell, and Chas. E. Matson, for the State.

Chas. O. Whedon, for defendant in error.

AMES, C.

One John F. Decker had been arrested and was detained by the sheriff of Lancaster county and in the common jail of that county, upon a warrant issued by a justice of the peace and charging him with having committed the offense of perjury while testifying as a witness upon the trial of a civil action in the district court of that county. Decker applied to the district court for, and obtained, a writ of habeas corpus under which to have inquiry made into the legality of his detention. The sheriff to whom the writ was directed made due return thereto, producing the person of the petitioner as therein commanded, and the court, after a hearing involving the taking of 166 pages of typewritten testimony, decided that there was no reasonable or probable cause for the accusation made in the warrant, and on the 23d day of February, 1905, ordered that the prisoner be discharged from custody. The county attorney, who was present at the hearing, took exceptions to certain orders and rulings of the court during the progress thereof, and afterwards caused a bill of exceptions of the same to be made up and settled by the district judge in the manner prescribed by section 483 of the Criminal Code. On June 8, 1905, before the late act regulating appeals to this court had taken effect, the county attorney caused said bill of exceptions, together with a transcript of the proceedings in connection with which it was prepared, to be filed with the clerk of this court, as well as a petition in error in which it is recited that the county attorney and deputy county attorney “proceed under the provisions of section 515 of the Criminal Code,” and in which they assign certain errors as having...