Ex Parte Crawford

Decided July 5, 1897

Nevada Supreme Court · decided 1897-07-05

The petition of James Crawford set forth that he was unlawfully imprisoned, confined and restrained of his liberty by the sheriff of Washoe county; that said imprisonment, detention, confinement and restraint were unlawful, and that the illegality consisted in this: That petitioner had been arrested upon a warrant issued from the justice court of Reno township, county of Washoe, State of Nevada, upon a complaint therein filed charging him with having threatened to commit an…

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently January 1909

2 state decisions

Relies on Ex parte Edgington

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1897-07-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 By the Court,

Belknap, C. J.:

¶2 In the matter of the application of James Crawford for a writ of habeas corpus:

¶3 The petitioner is held in custody by the sheriff of Washoe county by virtue of a commitment issued from the court of the justice of the peace of Reno township.

¶4 The commitment shows that the petitioner was found guilty of a public offense, to wit, threats against life, and is placed under bonds to keep the peace or be imprisoned in the county jail for the term of six months or until said bond be given.

¶5 No objection is made touching the regularity of the commitment, and the jurisdiction of the court is not questioned.

¶6 Under these facts it is our duty to deny the application. (Gen. Stats, sec. 3689.)

¶7 Whether petitioner was guilty or not, was the question to be decided upon the trial, and if it was erroneously decided, the remedy is by appeal, and not by habeas corpus. (Ex parte Edgington, 10 Nev. 215.)