the complaint, and admitted l:iy the demurrer, the plaintiff is entitled to recover. He appears to have. had, at least, 'possessmn,of lthe. claim,and tbedefendant ousted him without a shadow . of. right, @pia,rinfact, a nakedJrespasser. TheJawsQ!,;tbe state of this procedure, (23 St. p. 25,) and by them any "person who has a legal estate in real property, and a maY,reqQver SucQPossession,with presetttl'ight to Jb.epossessioll damages for withholding the same, by an action at law." Hill's Compo 1887, § 316. In Wilson v. Jiline, 14 Sawy.38, 38 Fed. Rep. 789, it was held, in the United States circuit court for the district of Oregon, that a person in the poflsessiO'n 'of re81 ]J1'operty'might maintain this8ction to recover the same against a mere intruder or wrong-doer. The judgment bf the is reversed; and:tbecause is r. manded for further proceedings with this <>pinion. t'i;'
. I'll ,.,
BOYD.
(CfreuUCourt Qt. AppealA, Ef{Jht1l. '.
mrcuu. ERROR.,
lIS. 18ft.) ,
A writ of habea8 corpm cantlOt be used as a mere substitute for a Writ of error. but will only be issued if applied for to relieve from imprisonment under the order ',"1' selltence of Bome, inferior court, when such court has acted without jul'i'sdiction, or hali exceeded its jl11'isdi'ction, and its order is for that reason void.
roB
OF
, . :,
I. SPIRITUOUS LIQUORS-INTRODUCTION INTO INDIAN COUNTRy-INFORM·ATION.
An lodged With States commissionj'lr, oharged the accused with "introducing ten gallons of beer into the Indian country the same being then anqthere spirituous liquor, in violation of section 2189, Rev. St. Held, that , ,introducing spirituous liquor intatOO Indian country was an offense under section 2169;, that the <;emmissipnerhad jurisdiQtion of such offenses, and the power to de. tennIne if beer was a spirituous liqUor; 'and that his decision on that question could not be reviewed on a writ of habeas corpus. ' '. ; .... " .. ;. : ,"0. ,
from the, United State!! Court in the Indian Territory. Application by Silas J. BoyctJor a writ of habeas C01]J'UB. The writ and he appeals., ' Affirmed. lV. B. Joh'1l8O'1l. and a. B. Stuart, for appellant. , ,Before, CALDWJi);LL, Circuit Judge, and 8HIRAS and THAYER, Districi J,u,dgtls. . T:El4YER, District Judge. This is.an appeal from an order olthe United ,Statel'l,cpl1rt in the Indian Territory, denying an application for a writ of habea8,corp'U$. An information appears to have been lodged with a United States commissioner1 in the Indian Territory, which was intended to charge a.l?pellant with .the commission of an offense under section 2139, Rev. ,b'. The commissioner issued a warrant, IUld" after an arrest and in. due form, committed the. accused in defalllt of bail for trial before the United States court in the Indian TerritOfY. Thereupon the
Albert Rennie.
IN RE BOYD.
49
appellant applied for a writ of habeas corpus, which was refused, and the present appeal was taken. The petition for the writ had annexed to it a full transcript of all the proceedings before the commissioner, and the same has been incorporated into the record. From such transcript it appears that the appellant was charged in the information lodged with the commissioner with having "introduced ten gallons of beer into the Indian country, the same being then and there spirituous liquor, in violation of section 2139 of· the Revised Statutes of the United States, and against its peace and dignity." It was claimed by appellant in the lower court, and the same contention is made here, that the affidavit or information did not charge an. the laws of theUnited States,bebause beer is not a "splrituotls that the commissioner accordingly acted without auth'ority,ahd that the order committing the appellant in default of bail was and is unlawful and void. We are of the opinion that the lOWEll: coutt:propeHy refused to grant a writ of habeaa corpthq. The information,· as we.oonstrueit, in effect charged the accused with "introducing spiritul!us' liquors into the Indian country," which is an offense. under seetion 2139, supm, in that it alleged that the beer introduced was "spirituous liquor." It was the duty of the commissioner to hear and determine the issue thus tendered, and to hear and determine it like any of law or fact that might arise in the course of the trial. other It was as much within his jurisdiction to decide the liquor in question was, "spirituous" as itwas to determine whether a liquor of any kind had been introduced into the territory by the I,tccused, if that fact had be.en denied and put in issue. According to our view. the tion an offense under thelaws of the United States. The commissioner had authority to commit persons charged with such OflE!llSes. and,M the record shows, he had acquired full jurisdiction of the person of the accused. Under these circumstances, the order of commitment was not void; and, such being the case, a writ of habeas corpus will not lie, no matter how erroneous the order may have been. The writ cannot be used. as a mere substitute for a writ of error, to reverse an erroneous judgment, but will only be issued (if applied for to relieve from imprisonment under the order or sentence of some inferior federal court) when it is shown that such inferior tribunal has acted without jurisdiction, or has exceed.ed its jurisdiction, and that its order was and is, for that reason, void. ThIS doctrine is fundamental, and has often been stated and applied. Ex parle P(Lrks,93 U. S.18; Ex parte Bigelow, 113 U. S. 328, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 542; Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 152; Ex parte Ulrich, 43 Fed. Rep. 663. In Ex parte Bigelow, supra, it was held that· a qistrict court has jurisdiction to determine in the first instance whether a particuiar act set and described in an indictment as a crime un.derthe laws of the United States is ods not a crime; and. that the IOupreme court would not, under a writ ofhaberts corpus, review the decision of the lower court on that point, although no writ of error could be sued out to reverse the judgment This decision v.49F.no.1-4
so
FEDERAL REPORTERj'
,vol. 49.
the stldpe'andetringency of the rule to which we have referred. With. out pursuing the subject further, it will suffice to :say that the order refusing the writ was clearly right,and is hereby affirmed. i"j ,.\1
UNITED'
STATES "
V. FOWKEl!!.1
,(DiBtrlc' Court, E. D. PenflByZVania. 'January 5, 1899.' I, 0II.,M1N4J,o LAW-REMOVAL 011' PRIson. !J'O, ANOTHER I)IIITRICT-EVIDENOL 'to' show
,
oOUllq
no'
S.
wbich doea' not form the subject-matter ot a detense. but' merely tends that tbe indictment had been Irregularly foundy or that the offense cbarged have thll prisoner, will be,heard in his, behalf in prowar.x:antot under B,ev. St. S 1014. " ON a.UIlIlA,S CORPUS.' , ,
'. :'Where a prisoner bas'been arrested on ,a warrant founiled on an indictment found bY afecleral,grand in which he did not :t'esjde ,and was not found, whijlb presumably had not been instro6ted by the court all to theconstltuents of the crime;ebarged, and ,wbeuithere been no prevloullarrell1i\ hearing, or binding OVl,Ir, the court of the distriot in \Vh,loh the &rl'est is made will dlsoharge the 011 habeas corpua. , __ "_'_, '" "
by FrankW. Fowkes, relator, and motion ro court fot warrant 'onemoval, under section 1014, Rev. St:, commissioner's return 93, of' 1891', ,of'a prisonercommitte<!' hya commissioner on a warrant issued undel'l/-n by the fe'deralgraild'juryof the eastern diVision of the :eastern district of Missouri; for offense against the interstate commei'cWact, (Act 'Congo Feb. 4; 1887,) as amended March 2, 1889. Theindietment charged that the Wabash, the New York, Chicago & St. Lo\tlsitheCentralofNew Jertley;the Philadelphia & Reading, and the Delaivate, La:*awanna & WesterilRailroads, each being a corpora.. tiou, lI'cotrlinon and engaged' the transportation of property wholly;p,y r,a¥foad; u?det an a East St. 1.0UIS to PhIladelphIa; that they had estabhshed a Jomt'tarItf of rates' forcontitluous carriage, and filed a copy thereof with the interstatecqmmerce Mmrnission,for lOcOll1otive 'brakes"of 38l'cents per cwt. j and that pertain nanietl persons, acting: far the several railroads,-among them,.allidFrankW. Fowkes, for the Philadelphia & Reading Railroad, -willfully charged, et'c·. , ,ilrtd caused' to be charged, etc., a less compensation than the joint tariff rate,s (3B' cents pet,owt.) to the ·American Company for carrying locomotive brakes from East St. Louis to Philadelphia over their J,'ahroads. 'The second count of the indictment charged that said charge' of lesf! than tariff rates was willfully permitted, by means, of a rebate allowed by said officials.' , The indictment had been l.found merely on presentation'by district attorney, and without arl'est or binding ovel:. The allowed to 'testify , and deposed that be was never in the state of Missouri; that his busihess was only to '. . \ ' 'I .
i Reported by Mark Wilks Collet, Esq.,
of the :Philadelphia bar.