See REMOVAL OF CAUSES, 1d.
1. Conclusiveness of decision of Land Department on questions of fact.
The decision of the proper officers of the Land Department on questions of
fact in a contest is conclusive on the courts and, in the absence of fraud
in preventing a party from presenting his case, the decision is not sub-
jected to review by the courts by a charge of perjury against the wit-
nesses. Estes v. Timmons, 391.
2. Correction of ambiguous language of decree.
Where the language of the decree of the Circuit Court is open to miscon-
struction it should be corrected by the Circuit Court itself. Union
Pacific Co. v. Mason City Co., 160.
3. Discretion of Circuit Court to issue writ of certiorari auxiliary to writ of
habeas corpus.
While the Circuit Court has power to issue a writ of certiorari auxiliary to
the writ of habeas corpus it is wholly discretionary with it, and its
refusal to do so cannot be assigned as error. Hyde v. Shine, 62.
4. Disqualification of judge for interest as ground for reversal.
While courts will guard against any attempt of an interested judge to force
himself upon litigants, if the record does not clearly establish the dis-
qualification relied upon this court will not disturb the judgment on
that ground. McGuire v. Blount, 142.
Courts may take judicial notice of the effect of garbage on the public health.
Gardner v. Michigan, 325.
6. Power to direct verdict.
Where the court would be bound to set a verdict aside for want of testimony
to support it, it may direct a finding in the first instance and not await
the enforcement of its view by granting a new trial. McGuire v.
Blount, 142.
7. Procedure in courts of Philippine Islands in criminal cases-Power of
appellate court to convict of higher offense than that of judgment appealed
from.
Plaintiffs in error were tried for murder in the court of first instance in the
Philippine Islands and were acquitted of the crime of murder and con-
victed of the crime of assault and were sentenced to six months' im-
prisonment and a fine. They appealed to the Supreme Court of the
Philippine Islands, which reversed that judgment and found them guilty
of homicide and sentenced them to various terms from eight to fourteen
years' imprisonment and a fine. On a writ of error seeking to review
the judgment on the ground that the action of the Supreme Court of
the Philippine Islands amounted to putting the accused in second
jeopardy, held that: In reversing the lower court and itself convicting
the accused on such appeal, the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands
acted within its powers, and in ordinary procedure in the courts of that
country under the act of July 1, 1902. Trono v. United States, 521.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS;
NATIONAL BANKS, 3;
PLEADING;
See APPEAL AND ERROR, 1;
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 3, 12;
CRIMINAL LAW;
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE;
REMOVAL OF CAUSES, 2;
STATES, 5, 7.
1. Conspiracy; place of trial where conspiracy entered into although completed
elsewhere.
Where the indictment charges that a conspiracy was entered into in a Dis-
trict, the trial court of that District has jurisdiction of the offense
although the overt acts carrying out the conspiracy were committed
in another jurisdiction. While this court does not approve the practice
of indicting citizens in courts far distant from their residence if they
can be tried in courts of their own jurisdiction, § 1014, Rev. Stat.
contains no discrimination based upon distance and requires the com-
mitment to be made for trial before the court having cognizance of the
offense, and in the absence of an exception in the statute the court
cannot create one. Hyde v. Shine, 62.
2. Conspiracy; sufficiency of indictment.
On the facts in this case the indictment which charges a completed con-
spiracy to defraud the United States by means of obtaining state lands
through sales to fictitious persons and then exchanging them for lands
of the United States under the forest reserve acts, held sufficient not-
withstanding that the State received full compensation for the land.
3. Review, upon habeas corpus, of validity of indictment.
Whether the act charged is or is not a crime is one which the trial court is
competent to decide, and, under the circumstances of this case, this
court will not review the validity of the indictment upon habeas corpus.
Ib.
4. Jurisdiction of criminal court of District of Columbia.
Section 23, ch. 35, Comp. Stat. District of Columbia, giving the Criminal
Court of the District jurisdiction of all crimes and misdemeanors com-
mitted in the District, not lawfully triable in any other court, has
reference only to other courts within the District, and was not intended
to change the law with respect to the general jurisdiction of courts
having jurisdiction of the same offense. Ib.
5. Weighing of evidence as to probable cause, by Federal court on habeas corpus.
While a Federal court on habeas corpus may order the petitioner's discharge
if there is an entire lack of evidence to support the accusation, where
a prima facie case is made by the indictment, and the commissioner re-
ceives evidence on petitioner's behalf, it is for him to determine whether
probable cause existed and the court will not weigh the evidence on
habeas corpus.
In an action of ejectment in which the plaintiff relied upon a line of con-
veyances not going back to the original source of title coupled with
possession on the part of a grantor, held, on a discussion of the evidence
that the deeds sufficiently identified the land and that the plaintiff was
entitled to go to the jury on the question of possession. Chesapeake
Beach Ry. v. Washington R. R., 247.
2. Title passed by trustee's deed under decree of foreclosure.
A deed by the trustee of a mortgage reciting a foreclosure decree is not
limited in its operation to the authority conferred by the decree but
passes the title of the trustee to the land which it purports to convey. Ib.
3. Validity of conveyance by disseisee.
A conveyance of land in the District of Columbia made by a disseisee is
valid. Ib.'
DISPENSARY LAW.
See INTERNAL REVENUE, 2.
See DEEDS (Chesapeake Beach Ry. v. Washington R. R., 247).
EJECTMENT. Id.
REMOVAL OF CAUSES, 3 (Hyde v. Shine, 62).
TITLE (Chesapeake Beach Ry. v. Washington R. R., 247).
DIVERSE CITIZENSHIP.
See JURISDICITON.
DOMICIL.
See TAXATION, 10.
DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; STATES, 2, 8;
1. Sufficiency of title to enable plaintiff to recover.
The plaintiff in ejectment must recover on the strength of his own title,
which must be sufficiently established to warrant a verdict in his favor,
and in the absence of that open, notorious and continuous adverse
possession necessary to prove a title by prescription, he may be de-
feated if the defendant is not a mere trespasser or interloper and shows
an outstanding and subsisting title in a stranger. McGuire v. Blount,
142.
2. Pleading; effect of reference to tax sales of land demanded, to import out-
standing title.
A reference in a declaration to tax sales of the land demanded will not be
construed to import that there is a title outstanding in third persons,
as against the allegation that the plaintiff was lawfully seized of the
premises, no evidence having been taken on the subject at the trial.
Chesapeake Beach Ry. v. Washington R. R., 247.
Ancient documents; admissibility not affected by changes of possession.
Spanish documents coming from official custody and bearing on their face
every evidence of age and authenticity and which otherwise are en-
titled to admissibility as ancient documents will not be excluded be-
cause subjected to various changes of possession during the transition
of the Government of Florida from Spain to the United States and
during the Civil War, where it does not appear that they were ever out
of the hands of a proper custodian, that the originals were lost, or there
had been any fraudulent substitution. McGuire v.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 16;
CRIMINAL LAW, 5;
EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION.
See TAXATION, 3, 6, 9.
FEDERAL QUESTION.
See JURISDICTION.
FEES AND COMMISSIONS.
See BANKRUPTCY, 1.
FELLOW SERVANTS.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 7.
FISHERIES.
See PUBLIC LANDS, 5.
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW;
TAXATION, 2, 10.
See TAXATION, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9.
GENERAL ORDER IN BANKRUPTCY.
See MORTGAGE AND DEED OF TRUST, 1, 2.
Grounds for issuance of writ.
The writ of habeas corpus will not issue unless the court under whose war-
rant petitioner is held is without jurisdiction, nor can the writ be used
merely to correct errors. The writ will not be granted when there is
|