Hyde v. Shine

From Wikisource
(Redirected from 199 U.S. 62)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Court Documents

United States Supreme Court

199 U.S. 62

Hyde  v.  Shine

 Argued: February 21, 23, 1905. --- Decided: May 29, 1905

This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court, denying the appellant's application for writs of habeas corpus and certiorari, and dismissing his petition therefor.

The proceedings which culminated in the arrest and remanding of the appellant originated in an indictment found in the supreme court of the District of Columbia against the appellant and John A. Benson, Henry P. Dimond, and Joost H. Schneider, charging them with a conspiracy, under Rev. Stat. § 5440, U.S.C.omp. Stat. 1901, p. 3676, 'to defraud the United States out of the possession and use of, and the title to, divers large tracts of the public lands of the United States.' All of the defendants except Schneider are residents of San Francisco, California. Upon a complaint made, based upon such indictment, before a United States commissioner for the northern district of California, Hyde was arrested under Rev. Stat. § 1014, U.S.C.omp. Stat. 1901, p. 716, taken before a commissioner, and held to bail to answer the indictment in the sum of $50,000, and in default thereof was committed to the custody of the defendant, Shine, to await the order of the district judge for his removal to the District of Columbia, or until he should be discharged by due course of law. Upon such order of removal being issued (United States v. Hyde, 132 Fed. 545), appellant presented his petition to the circuit court for the northern district of California, praying for writs of habeas corpus and certiorari, and for his discharge from imprisonment, which were denied, and this appeal taken.

Messrs. William B. Hornblower and Charles C. Cole for appellant.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 64-69 intentionally omitted]

Solicitor General Hoyt and Messrs. Francis J. Heney and Arthur B. Pugh for appellee.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 69-75 intentionally omitted]

Mr. Justice Brown delivered the opinion of the court:


This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).