Page:United States Reports, Volume 209.djvu/234

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

208 OCTOBEE TEEM, 1907. ArV?t for -?V!?a?t, ?0? U. dollars, and the officer or agent should he fined or imprisoned, or both, in the discretion of the court. Upon the he?/ng of the motion for an injunction, ?fter grant- ing the same, the Circuit Judge wrote an oph?on (155 Fed. Rep. 756), in which he reached the conclusion that ? 4 of the act in re- gard to po?enger rate? was on it? f?ce unconstitutional and void. Notwithstanding the fact that an injunction had been granted, proceedings were thereafter taken ?n?t t? appellee, a ticket agent of the company, to punish him for not comply- ing with the act in relation to the ?le of tickete, re?ulting in his conviction, as already stated. The sheriff of Buncombe county, in who?e custody the pellee was restrained, duly appealed to this court from the order discharging the appellee from his ermtody. Mr. E. J.. Justice, Mr. J. H. Merrimon ?nd Mr. C. B. Aycock for appellant on the point of whether the remedy of hab?s eorpu? was proper: The ?wit from a Circuit Judge to a' sheriff eramot properly require the production of a prisoner held by the sheriff for violation of a sta?e law, when the prisoner ha$ had a trial with right to sue out a writ of error to the United State? Supreme Gourt, or when he i? about to be put upon his trial, if the?e fact? appear upon the face of the petition, or upon the return of the ?heriff such are found to be the fact?; in such ease thi? otmt? the jurisdiction of the Federal iudge who issued the writ, and he should so hold and dischaxge the writ. Whenever it that the prisoner is held by an officer of the sta?e court for violation of the state law, and is not denied a hearing, the juris- diction of the FederM iudge who imued the writ of habea? corp? is ottoted, and the prisoner must make his application for his writ of/robco.8 corpus to a state court. This is so even though the galilt or iunocenee of the prisoner depends upon whether the state law is in conflict with the Fed- eral Constitution, .for this ?n bc determined by the state court, �nd finally by the Supreme Gourt of the United 8tate?.