In Re Barlow

282 P. 380 | Idaho | 1929

The supreme court having jurisdiction to review on appeal decisions of the district courts in habeas corpus proceedings (In re Jennings, 46 Idaho 142, 267 P. 227) will not exercise its power (Const., art. 5, sec. 9; C. S., sec. 9275) to grant an original writ of habeas corpus except in extraordinary cases. (In re Burnette, 73 Kan. 609, 85 P. 575; Ex parteShaw, 7 Ohio St. 81, 70 Am. Dec. 55; Ex parte Shean, 25 Ohio St. 440;State v. Wolfer, 127 Minn. 102, 148 N.W. 896, L.R.A. 1915B, 95; Ex parte Lynn, 19 Tex. App. 120; Ex parte Japan, 36 Tex. Crim. 48,38 S.W. 43; Ex parte Patterson, 42 Tex. Crim. 256, 58 S.W. 1011, 51 L.R.A. 654; Ex parte Lambert, 37 Tex. Crim. 435,36 S.W. 81; Ex parte Ellis, 11 Cal. 223; Exparte Nabors, 33 N.M. 324, 267 P. 58; People v. Adams, 83 Colo. 321, 264 P. 1090; Commonwealth v. Curry,285 Pa. 289, 132 A. 370; Ex parte Mulholland, 13 Cal. App. 734,110 P. 585; 13 Cal. Jur., "Habeas Corpus," sec. 37; 29 C. J. 141.) Application has not been made to the district court of the county and no sufficient reason is assigned for first invoking the jurisdiction of the supreme court.

The petition is accordingly denied.

Budge, C.J., and Givens, T. Bailey Lee and Varian, JJ., concur.