Ex parte Edgington

10 Nev. 215

Opinion

By the Court,

Beatty, J.:

The petition for the writ of habeas corpus in this case, and the return thereto, to which there is no exception, shows that the petitioner is detained in custody by virtue of a final judgment of a justice of the peace of Virginia City, convicting him of violating an ordinance of that corporation. It is conceded that the justice of the peace had jurisdiction of the offense charged, as well as of the prisoner, and that a legal ordinance authorizes the judgment.

Such being the case, it is made our imperative duty to remand the prisoner by the plain terms of our habeas corpus act (1 Compiled Laws, Sec. 367), and we cannot, without pronouncing an extra-judicial opinion, undertake to decide whether the business of the petitioner was carried on within the corporate limits of Virginia City or not. That was a question to be decided on the trial, and if it was decided erroneously in point either of law or fact, the remedy is by appeal and not by habeas corpus.

The prisoner is remanded.

Earll, J., did not participate in the foregoing decision.