in am noaa. P   27
the prisoner is claimed to be held in good faith, in pursuance of the provisions
of said statute, the judge or court issuing the writ has no jurisdiction or au-
thority to proceed further, and no jurisdiction or authority to compel the pro-
duction of the body of the prisoner, or to commit the party holding him for
contempt in thus respectfully declining to produce the prisoner. I
4. Sana-Errncr or Pnonncrron or Pnrsonmn.
The effect of the production of the prisoner would be to place him in the
physical control of the court, and to deprive the agent of all power to execute
the superior commands of the laws of the United States, to which he owes
obedience. .
Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The opinion states the
facts. Before Sawmn and SAB1N, JJ. h “
Alfred Clarke, for the petitioner.
J. D. Sullivan, Dist. Atty. for the city and county of San Fran-
cisco, for sheriff. A
W. M. Fitzmaurtce, of counsel. .
Sswrna, J. W. L. Robb Bled his petition in the circuit court for
a writ of habeas corpus, in which he states: `
"That he is unlawfully imprisoned, detained, confined, and restrained of
his liberty by P. Connolly, sheriif of the city and county of San Francisco,
at the city and county of San Francisco, in the state of California; that
the said imprisonment, detention, confinement, and restraint are illegal; and
that the illegality thereof consists in this, to-wit, that petitioner is the duly
appointed agent of the state of Oregon to convey to said state Charles H.
Bayley, a fugitive from justice from said state, who is in the custody of this
petitioner under a warrant issued by the governor of California, a copy of '
which warrant is hereto annexed and made a part of this petition; that on
the twenty-iirstday of November, 1883, this petitioner was served with a ,
writ of habeas corpus from the superior court of the city and county of San .
Francisco, commanding him to produce in said court said Charles H. Bayley;
that petitioner respectfully informed said court by his return that he held
said Bayley under the authority of the United States, and refused to produce
said Bayley, and said superior court committed petitioner therefor for an
alleged contempt of its authority. Wherefore, petitioner is in custody for an
act done in executing a law of the United States, and for refusing to do an
act contrary to a law of the United States."
The warrant annexed to the petition and made a part thereof is
the same, a copy of which, with the return thereon, is hereinafter set
out in the commitment as a part of the judgment for contempt.
A writ of habeas corpus having been issued according to the prayer
and duly served, P. Connolly, sheriff, on January 11, 1884, made _
return as follows:
"Now comes P. Connolly and makes this his return to the within writ,
and shows that he holds the within named W. L. Robb under a commitment,
a copy of which is hereto annexed and made a part hereof.
“P. Conuonnv,
"Sheriff City and County of San Francisco.
" By M. F. Cmmmos, Under Sherijf.
" Dated January, 11, A. D. 1884."
The following is a copy of the commitment annexed to the return:
"In the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco, state of
California, Department No. 1, Wednesday, November the 21st, A. D. 1883.
*