130 U.S. 353 - Captain Jack — 130 U.S. 353

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1966

4 federal appellate ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1ORIGINAL.

¶2The facts that the petitioner in this case was -sentenced to imprisonment in Ohio, and that the offence was committed within a.judicial district instead of an Indian reservation, do not take this case out of the decision in Gon-shay-ee’s Case just decided, ante,.343.

¶3 *354Petition for habeas corpus · Case Law">writ of habeas corpus. The case is stated in the opinion.

¶4Mr. W. II. Lamar for petitioner. Mr. S. F. Phillips and Mr. J. G. Zachry were with him on the brief.

¶5Mr. Solicitor General opposing.

¶6Mr. Justice Miller

¶7delivered the opinion of the court.-

¶8The only distinctions between this case and that of Gonshay-ee, in which the opinion has just been delivered, are:

¶9First. That Captain Jack was sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor in the penitentiary of Ohio for thirty years, and the writ must, therefore, be directed to the keeper of that institution at Columbus in that State.

¶10Second. That it appears by the record that in the former case the offence was committed on an Indian reservation, while in the case of Captain Jack the act was done within the judicial district, but not upon such a reservation.

¶11"We do not consider that these differences have any influence in the decision of the question as to the jurisdiction of the court which tried them both, and that therefore in this case, as in the former, the writ of habeas corpus should issue.

¶12Writ grcmted.