Ex parte Wilson (114 U.S. 417)

This court cannot discharge on habeas corpus a person imprisoned under the sentence of a Circuit or District Court in a criminal case, unless the sentence exceeds the jurisdiction of that court, or there is no authority to hold the prisoner under the sentence.

The provision of Rev. Stat. § 1022, authorizing, certain offences to be prosecuted either by indictment or by information, does not preclude the prosecution by information of such other offences as may be so prosecuted consistently with the Constitution and laws of the United States.

In the record of a general conviction and sentence upon two counts, one of which is good, a misrecital of the verdict as upon the other count only, in stating the inquiry whether the convict had aught to say why sentence should not be pronoulced against him, is no ground for discharging him on habeas corpus.

In the record of a judgment of a District Court, sentencing a person convicted in one State to imprisonment in a prison in another State, the omission to state that there was no suitable prison in the State in which he was convicted, and that the Attorney-General had designated the prison in the [p418] other State as a suitable place of imprisonment, is no ground for discharging the prisoner on habeas corpus.

A certified copy of the record of a sentence to imprisonment is sufficient to authorize the detention of the prisoner, without any warrant or mittimus.

A person sentenced to imprisonment for an infamous crime, without having been presented or indicted by a grand jury, as required by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, is entitled to be discharged on habeas corpus.

A crime punishable by imprisonment for a term of years at hard labor is an infamous crime, within the provision of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, that "no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury."

This was a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, presented to this court by a man confined in the House of Correction at Detroit in the State of Michigan, under a sentence to be imprisoned there for fifteen years at hard labor, passed by the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas, upn an information filed by the District Attorney for that district.

The record of the conviction and sentence, a copy of which was annexed to the petition, showed the following case:

The information, which was filed by leave of the court, contained two counts: The first count upon Rev. Stat. § 5430, for unlawfully having in possession, with intent to sell, an obligation engraved and printed after the similitude of securities issued under authority of the United States, to wit, of an interest-bearing coupon bond of the United States; and the second count upon § 5431, for passing, with intent to defraud, a counterfeited interest-bearing coupon bond of the United States; and each count alleging that the bond was in the words and figures of a copy attached to the indictment and made part thereof. That copy was of an instrument purporting to be a bond of the United States Silver Mining Company of Denver City, Colorado, having printed at its head the words "THE UNITED STATES" in large and conspicuous capitals, followed on a lower line by the words "" in much smaller and less distinct type, and bearing the signatures of "R.E. Hullson, Pres't," and "J.H. Mayson, Sec'y," and otherwise numbered and lettered very much like a genuine bond of the United States.

[p419] The defendant filed a general demurrer to the information, which was overruled by the court; and he then pleaded not guilty, and was tried by a jury, who returned a general verdict of guilty; and he moved for a new trial, for insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. The rest of the record (a certified copy of which was the only paper delivered to the keeper of the house of correction) stated that the defendant was brought to the bar in the custody of the marshal, and his motion for a new trial overruled, "and the said defendant, being now inquired of by the court if he have aught to say why the judgment and sentence of the court should not now be pronounced against him upon the verdict and finding of the jury in this case, finding him guilty of passing a counterfeit United States bond, and saying nothing further than he hath already said; and the court being now well advised in the premises; it is therefore considered, ordered, adjudged and sentenced that said defendant, James S. Wilson, do pay to the United States a fine of five thousand dollars for said offence and all the costs of this proceeding, and that the United States have execution therefor, and that he be imprisoned for and during the term of fifteen years at hard labor in the House of Correction at Detroit, Michigan, and that the said marshal of this district convey the said prisoner to the house of correction aforesaid, and deliver him to the custody of the keeper thereof; and that the clerk of this court make out for said marshal two copies of this judgment and sentence, duly certified under the seal of, this court, one of which the said marshal shall deliver to the keeper of said house of correction, and the other return and file in this court, with the receipt of said keeper thereon."

The offence described in Rev. Stat. § 5430 is punishable by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by imprisonment at hard labor not more than fifteen years, or by both; and the offence described in § 5431 is punishable by a like fine and imprisonment.

The petitioner alleged in his petition, and contended in argument that his imprisonment was illegal, upon the following grounds:

First, That in excess of the powerof the court, and in violation [p420] of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, he had been held to answer for, an infamous crime, and punished by a fine of $5,000 and imprisonment for the term of fifteen years at hard labor, without presentment or indictment by a grand jury.

Second, That he was held under a judgment void; and in excess of the power of the court, upon an information for a crime which was not committed against the provisions of chapter 7 of the title Crimes in the Revised Statutes, in which cases informations were expressly authorized, and to which they were impliedly restricted, by § 1022 of those statutes.

Third, That the judgment was void and in excess of the power of the court, because the conviction and the sentence were for different offences, the conviction being for having in possession a bond of a mining company in the similitude of a United States bond, and the sentence being for passing a counterfeit United States bond.

Fourth, That he was held by the keeper of the Detroit House of Correction without authority of law, because the order of the court for his imprisonment did not show that the court had determined two questions of fact which were made by Rev. Stat. §§ 5541, 5546, conditions precedent to the exercise of its power to sentence to a prison outside the State of Arkansas, namely, 1st, that there was no suitable prison in that State, and, 2d, that the Attorney-General had designated the Detroit House of Correction as a suitable penitentiary in another State.

Fifth, That the keeper had no warrant or mittimus authorizing him to hold the prisoner, as required by Rev. Stat. § 1028.

Mr. Alfred Russell for petitioner.

Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Maury, contra.