IN RE SCHNEIDER , 148 U. S. 162 (1893)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 148 U. S. 162

U.S. Supreme Court

In re Schneider , 148 U.S. 162 (1893)

In re Schneider (No. 2.)

No number

Decided March 14, 1893

148 U.S. 162



Leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus and certiorari to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, or the officers of the District acting under a judgment of that court, will be denied when the ground of the application relates to an error in the proceedings of that court, and does not go to its jurisdiction or authority.

This was a petition to this Court by Howard J. Schneider and Jeremiah M. Wilson, William F. Mattingly, and A. A. Hoehling, Jr., his attorneys, and in his behalf. The allegations in the petition were substantially identical with those in the petition set forth in the margin in In re Schneider, Petitioner (No. 1), ante, 148 U. S. 157. The prayer was as follows:

"Wherefore your petitioners pray that the writ of habeas corpus issue to Jerome B. Burke, the warden of the United States jail in the District of Columbia, commanding him to produce the body of the petitioner, Schneider, in court forthwith, together with the cause of his detention as a prisoner by said warden, and that petitioner, Schneider, may be discharged and set at liberty, and petitioners furthermore pray

Page 148 U. S. 163

that the writ of certiorari may issue to John R. Young, Clark of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, commanding him to certify to this court all the proceedings of record of the United States against Howard J. Schneider in that court, to the end that the errors therein, as set forth in this petition, may be fully corrected by this court."

The same reasons were given as were given there for the action of the attorneys in uniting in the petition and for its nonverification by Schneider.

Page 148 U. S. 166

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: Leave to file petition for writs of habeas corpus and certiorari is denied. The ground of the application does not go to the jurisdiction or authority of the Supreme Court of the District, and mere error cannot be reviewed in this proceeding. Ex Parte Parks, 93 U. S. 18; Ex Parte Bigelow, 113 U. S. 328; Ex Parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417; Nielsen, Petitioner, 131 U. S. 176.

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line :