TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ex parte Williams

Ex Parte, Richard Williams

Ex parte Williams, 1 Wash. Terr. 240 (Wash. Terr. 1867)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Washington Territory · State Specialty Courts
Decided
December 15, 1867
Judges
Wyche
Citations
1 Wash. Terr. 240
Headnotes
The trial of a cause by a court of competent jurisdiction not reviewáble on writ of habeas corpus.
Summary
Erom Third Judicial District.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Wyche

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Opinion by Wyche, Associate Justice.

Richard Williams, the petitioner, was tried and sentenced for murder in the second degree, in the Court below, and no appeal or writ of error haying been prosecuted from such judgment, this Court is now asked to consider and review the judgment below on a writ of habeas corpus.

The application for this writ is placed on the ground that the Court below had no jurisdiction in the premises and that the prisoner was tried under a Territorial law, when in fact he should have been tried under a United States law. We are of opinion that the jurisdictional limits of the Court embraced both laws, and that the determination of the question under which law the prisoner should be tried was a matter proper for-the determination of the Court below, and that the Court was therefore a Court of competent jurisdiction; and if in the determination of that question errór was committed, the same can be corrected only on writ of error or appeal. 1 Easts. reports, page 313 et seq.; 6 Iowa reports, page 79; 5 Johnson, page 288; 3 Peters U. S. reports, page 200; 25 Wendell reports, page 89 et seq.; Kent’s Com. vol. 2, pages 29, 30.

The question of such error, has been pressed upon the Court, but for the reason that the Court would be unwilling to determine so important a question without full argument on both sides, and because the ruling of the Court below is not here properly for review, the Court declines to express any opinion in the premises, and the writ asked must be refused.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1924: 11945: 219242026peak 1945 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ellern v. Superior Court160 P.2d 639 (Wash. 1945) · Dissent
  2. In re Grieve158 P.2d 73 (Wash. 1945)
  3. In re Miller225 P. 429 (Wash. 1924)

Most recent

  1. Ellern v. Superior Court160 P.2d 639 (Wash. 1945) · Dissent
  2. In re Grieve158 P.2d 73 (Wash. 1945)
  3. In re Miller225 P. 429 (Wash. 1924)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list