IN BB WOODS. 66$ �ihe United States over offences cognizable under the author- ity of the United States, and that habeaa corpus from a fed- eral court or judge is a proper remedy. �This is not a proceeding for relieving oriminals at all from just punishment. It is intended to relieve persons from punisament contrary to the laws of the United Stiates, but not from liability to be punished according to those laws. If the relator was still liable to punishment according to those laws, he would be held by order of court until the district attorney could proceed against him; but the offence for which he has already suffered considerable punishment is now apparently barred by the statute of limitations of the United States. Therefore further detention would be unavaiiing. �The relator is discharged from this imprisonment. ���In re Woods, Banknipt. �^District Oowt, S. B. New Tork. May 24, 1881.) �Bamkbuptcy — Pboof of Bboitred Dbbt — Possbssionop Notes Asteb Taking Chattbl Moktgages— Puhchase bt Mobtgagb CREpiroB ON ExEccTioN Sale — AMOtrarr to bb Cbedited to Bankbupt — Mbkgbr. �A crediter proved liis debt for money lent, secured by two chat- tel mortgages for $7,000 and $9,000, reapectively, and on promis- sory notes for the further sum of $5,000. HM, on the evidence, that the register, in expunging the proof of debt, erred in flnding that the second chattel mortgage was intended to secure the same debt which was secured by the notes. The continued possession of the notes was prima facie evidence of the debt, and this continued possession was not explained by the bankrupt nor overcome by other testimony. �A crediter having taken chattel mortgages to secure his debt from the bankrupt on property, the bankrupt's equity in which was af ter- wards sold on execution against lum and purchased hy the crediter, who appropriated it to his own use, is chargeable as a credit upon the debt with no larger sum than the actual value of the property, if that is less than the amount of the mortgages. In such a case the mort- gagee, by appropriating the mortgaged property to his own use and neglecting to render an account of its use or of its proceeds to the mortgagor, is not to bedeemed to have taken the property in satis- faction of the debt, where the debt exceeds the value of the property. ��� �
