have refetelilce to jurisdictional facts, but to discharge. In the/sixth and seventh divisions of the third paragraph of the defendant's specia.l defense, the facts in regard to the jurisdictioQ of the California .court i()Ver the person of the .defendal1t Pavis, the serviQe by publication, the California statute, and his nonappearance in the suit are set forth. at length. These facts are pleaded ,as a part of the defense of the discharge in bankruptcy, and, as the Code requires that each separate defense should be separately stated, it cannot be SUPP9sed that they constitute adQu,ble. defense. If they are material to the defense in bankruptcy,'-and from the fact that they are pleaded it isto be presumed tbat the pleader them material,-they preand claim, and setup by answer, the invalidity of thlljudgmentas the defense. ,This is prphibiwd by the injUlwtion order, which the from in any manner or form maintaining that the J.IH.,qg.m en.twas ,no.t. made by c.our hav,i.ng competent jurisdiction thereOf. .. . Pltfticulars which have heenqaU)led, I am of ppinion that the de1lt¥1rn.ey has not c91mplied with the injunction order,and that tpe"r;:igljlti?u""ill be One until the answet: is amended. IT'4e suggest£lollly a fineequiy:alent to the amount of expenses which lW has incurred in the preparation of the voluminous motion papers. The qu.estion of the amount of: fine will be SUbmitted to the upon ,aHidavits, and without argpInept, within one week from the filhig of.thiaopinion. The order Will, b,e thereafter bettled upon hearing.
Ex parte SKtLES.
(Circuit Court, D.Minnesota, Third, DLvf.sfon. June S, 1892.)
JUBEAS COlWUs-J"ORISDIOTION Oll' FED,ERAL COURTS-ExTRADITED PRISONER CON, VIOTED Oll' DIll'l!'ERENT OFnlNSE. ' .
, The:feaeral courts have no jurilldiction to review by h.abOO8 cO'rpuli a judgment of conviction in .a state court having jUJ'isdiction of the person and the offense, although the prisoner had· been extradited from another state to answer an indictment, and was oonvicted of an olJenseother than that charged therein. His remedy :. '. Is br appeal 91' other appropriate proceedings in the state courts.
At Law:. Application of Robert for writ of habeaa COrpU8. Denied. .' . '.. " r"r,' and J·. Nethaway, for petitioner. , H. BUll/wan, Co. Atty., for t,he State. Thepris()D,er, Skill'll!!. ,was rendered up to tl},e state of Minnesota on demand of. the executive, from the state of by proceedings .commenced uhder the cOIlsdtution and laws of the United States in regard to the qeliyery of fugitives from justice. Hl #as delivered up and state of Mhlllesota, and confined in the jail, 12, 1892" a:n allegation that an indict-
ment stood against him in the county of Washington, state of Minnesota, found by the grand jury, May 6, A. D. 1890, charging the crime of obtaining by false pretenses a promissory note and chattel mortgage from one John Alfred Roney. On May 5, A. D. 1892, while awaiting trial, an indictment was found against him for. the same offense of defrauding Roney, evidently to correct asupposed defect in the first i11dictmellt. The grand jury also found an indictment against him for anotber and different crime from that on which he was extradited. On an arraignment under this indictment the prisoner refused to plead,and on plea of not guilty being entered he was tried May 16, 1892, and convicted, and a motion was made. and is now pending, in the state ,court in arrest of and to set aside this judgment. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus to secure the prisoner's release alleges that he is not final judgment or decree of any competent detained by reason of tribunal of civil or crimii.lal jurisdiction, or by virtue of an execution issued upon such judgment or decree. It is urged that the district court of Washington county had no jurisdiction, and cannot lawfully put the prisoner upon trial for an offense for which he was not extra,Upon face of the petitipn and answer of the sheriff of,Washington cO)lnty to the "order to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should, not. issue, II it appears clearly that the petitioner is in custody and lawfully held by virtue of criminal proceedingsdu1y instituted unof the state of Minnesota; but while this is conceded, as I der the understand counsel, ,yet it is insisted that having been put upon his trial on an indictment charging another and different offense from that for which he was extradited, and judgJ:I;lent of conviction being entered, this court should declare such judgmel1t illegal and void, for the reason that the state Qf Minnesota had no right to try the petitioner extrlldited from another state upon a charge other than that contained in the extradition papers. If this position of counsel is sound, the federal courts have supervisory jurisdiction overjudgments of the state criminal courts, although su.ch courts had jurisdiction of the person anq. of the offense, ·and thus can accomplish by the writ of habeas corpus all that ptherwise could only be obtained on review by writ of error or appeal to the supreme court of the state, which undoubtedly has plenary jurisdiction to .correcte,rrors of the trial court. The circuit courts of the United States, in my opinion, do not possess such supervisory jurisdiction. It would be an afleGtation of learning, and serve, no useful purpose, to do more than cite counsel to the case Of Ex parte Ulrich, 43 Fed. Rep. 661, for .afq.ll a,nd .exhaustive exposition of the law involved in this case. Ap,plication for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.
8. D. March 10,1892.)
A, father, directeifby writ ofhabens corpus to produce bis child, before a state judge; 'eat/sed thechilcho bll'i'el:rioved'withOut of the state, and kept there in custody of an ageb;ti, subject to the, control of the father, for the purpose of defeating the jurisdictio'n of the state judge. Beld, that the child was constructively in the possession-of the father,'ailn rthat the fact of 'its beingwithollt the " state did not affect the jurisdiction of the sta,te judge to fine and imprison the father for ,qop.tempt in disobeyill,g the writ of habeas corpus. , lQl$uch case, the fine Mld hnprisonment were not "without due :Pl:OCeSS of law," and ,the circuit court of the United States has noJurisdiction of a t1etition by the ,,father for a writ of hnbert!1 corpus on that ground, whether the aotion of <the state court il;\ im,pGsing' tbe ,punlli1hlll.ent was or was not erroneous.
BA'M'E:':;'DuB PROOESS Ol!'L'Aw,
CHIJ,D,-JURTSDIOTION OF STATE COURT,
.At Law. l'etition by J'. W. yoting for writ of habeas corp1L8. ,missed., ," , , ' and W. H. :Qogle.for petitioner. for respondent. "
Judge. ,Th'eplaihtift' files his pl'!tHion for a writ of habel1.8 corp1L8, alleging that ,he is unlawfully imprisoned. It appears that he and: his wife have Be'p!lt'ated;thatthey have a child, who is three years and that proceedings are pending in the chancery court of the state,' by 'which Mrs.Youngseeks'adivorce fr<.IID her husband, and the custody of her clli'YM' .Febtuart26: 1892, the wife sued out a writ of habeascorp1t8agaimit ber husband aud others from the judge of a circuit CO\lrt of the state, aHegi6gthat her hrisband had the custody of the child; tbat intbe"divdrce prdceeding her husband had been attached, upon her petition', for conterh p't his disobedhmce, to the inj unction of the ch,ancellor, ,arid' the';ch'ancellor 'heard the charge of contempt on the 20th day'of FebruarYi1892j that on the Friday before this hearing .young had said that' he did not khi:l\v how the court would decide the matter, andthM he intended to rurtthe child away,so'that they could 'notg'etJ hold ot! her, pl'bVi('}'eu.thecourt should decide against him; and "that'in .execution and while the chancellor was hearing the 'matter ,of contempt, Young: had the ,child removed from this state, and beyond the chahcellor1s jcirisdictioq'. Upon this p(tition the circuit judge issued a 'writrequit'ing Young to appearbef6re him the afterchild with At the tiine. the nodnfollowing, and returnable in this case, Young, made what may '1j('!'styled a IlpllrtialrettitiV'1 but stated' that he' bad not been allowed sufficient time to make a ltilhmdcolnplete return';' 'The judge allo\'l'ed two days more. At tbe end of the two days the following order was made:
"STATE OF TENNESSEE, HAMILTON COUNTY.
der of the court to produce in court the body of Dorsey Young, as ordered in
In the Matter of the Petition of May Young VB. J. W. Young et als. Habeas Corpus P?'oceedings in the Court of Hamiltun Co., Tenn. "In this cause the defendant, Young, having failed to comply with the or·