said Henry Kendall Thaw, and after argument by counsel and consideration by the court, It is ordered that the writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum heretofore issued, directed to said Dr. Robert B. Lamb, Superintendent of the Matteawan State Hospital, in the state of New York, be quashed, and the petition for said writ be dismissed, with costs. Per Curiam. HABEAS CORPUS FORM IV.-ORDER DISCHARGING PRISONER. [196 Fed. 168.] Upon the return of the writs of habeas corpus and certiorari herein; upon reading and filing the same; and upon reading the petition of Walter Konrad Geissler, sworn to March 9th, 1912, filed in the office of this Court on the 11th day of March, 1912; and upon the return to the said writs of habeas corpus and certiorari; after hearing Roger Foster, Esq., of counsel for the petitioner, Walter Konrad Geissler, in support of the prayer of said petition and in support of a motion for the discharge of said prisoner Geissler, and after hearing Carl L. Schurz, Esq., of counsel for the demanding government, in opposition thereto; it is hereby ORDERED that the petitioner, Walter Konrad Geissler, be, and that he hereby is, discharged from imprisonment, and that the Marshal of the United States for the Southern District of New York is hereby ordered and directed to release said Geissler. HABEAS CORPUS FORM V.-WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS TO MARSHAL. The President of the United States to William Henkel, Esq., United States marshal for the southern district of New York, GREETING: We command you that you have the body of Walter Konrad Geissler, by you imprisoned and detained, as it is said, together with the time and cause of such imprisonment and detention, by whatsoever name he shall be called or charged, before the District Court of the United States in and for the Southern District of New York in the Second Circuit, at a stated term thereof, to be held on the 15th day of March, 1912, at 10:30 o'clock in the morning of that day or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, to do and receive what shall then and there be considered concern ing the said Walter Konrad Geissler, and have you then and there this writ. Witness, the Hon. GEORGE C. HOLT, U. S. District Judge, Southern District of New York. The 9th day of March, 1912. THOMAS ALEXANDER, Clerk of the District Court of the United States for the [Seal.] The foregoing writ is hereby allowed. New York, March 9th, 1912. LEARNED HAND, United States District Judge. FORMS FOR APPLICATION FOR WRITS MANDAMUS FORM I.-MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR MANDAMUS. [Permission granted, 247 U. S. 231.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. IN THE MATTER OF The Application of ANNIE S. SIMONS, for a Writ of Mandamus against the Honorable Charles M. Hough, Circuit Judge of the United States for the Second Circuit, and against the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, sitting at common law; or in the alternative for a Writ of Prohibition against the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York sitting in Equity; or in the alternative for the Writ of Certiorari addressed to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. And now comes the petitioner, Annie S. Simons, by Roger Foster, her attorney, and she moves for leave to file the petition hereto annexed for a Writ of Mandamus, or in the alternative, for a Writ of Prohibition, or in the alternative for a Writ of Certiorari, and she further moves that a rule be entered and issued directing the Honorable Charles M. Hough, Circuit Judge of the United States for the Second Circuit who. has been designated to hear motions in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, and directing the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, sitting at Common Law, to show cause why a Writ of Mandamus should not issue against them; and directing said Court to show cause why, in the alternative a Writ of Prohibition or a Writ of Certiorari should not issue against said Court; in accordance with the prayer of the said petition; and why said petitioner should not have such other and further relief in the premises as may be just and meet. ROGER FOSTER, Attorney and Counsel for petitioner 55 Liberty Street, Borough of Manhattan, City and State of New York. MANDAMUS FORM II.-PETITION TO SUPREME COURT. [Granted 247 U. S. 231.] To the Honorable Edward Douglass White, Chief Justice of the United States, and to the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. The petition of Annie S. Simons, respectfully shows: I. Your petitioner is a resident of the City of Charleston in the State of South Carolina. On or about the 16th day of May, 1917 an action was begun in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York by your petitioner, as plaintiff, against William Nelson Cromwell and Louis H. Cramer, as executors under the last will and testament of Frank Leslie, deceased, defendants by the service of the summons therein upon the defendant Cramer. Both the defendants subsequently appeared in said action. The defendant Cramer, by Honorable Edgar T. Brackett of Saratoga, New York; the defendant Cromwell, by Messrs. Sullivan & Cromwell of 49 Wall Street, New York City. The complaint herein was served on the attorneys of said defendants on or about June 15th, 1917. A copy thereof of hereunto annexed marked "A." Issue has been duly joined by the service of the answers of the defendants, copies of which are hereunto annexed marked "B" and "C." That of defendant Cramer was served June 27, 1917; that of defendant Cromwell July 5, 1917. Upon the demand of the defendant Cromwell an undertaking as security for costs was filed on behalf of the plaintiff. On July 10th, 1917 notice of trial at a jury term of the issues raised by said answers was duly served. On or about July 11th, 1917, the case was placed upon the jury calendar of said Court. II. The complaint therein sets forth two causes of action. The allegations as to the first cause of action set forth: the rendition of certain services by plaintiff as nurse and companion to the defendants' testator, Mrs. Frank Leslie, during a period of fourteen years, in three different States, at the request of said testator. The promise by Mrs. Leslie to compensate plaintiff for said services by bequeathing to her a legacy of the sum of $50,000. The failure of said Mr. Leslie to bequeath to the plaintiff more than the sum of $10,000 and the breach of the contract by said testator in this respect. The consequent damage to plaintiff in the sum of $40,000 for which judgment is prayed with interest from the date of the death of said Mrs. Frank Leslie, who bequeathed the greater part of her property to one Mrs. Catt, in order that the same might be used for the purpose of promoting the cause of Woman's Suffrage. The allegations as to the second cause of action in said complaint set forth the same services. They allege: that Mrs. Leslie promised to pay this plaintiff the reasonable value thereof. That the reasonable value thereof was the sum of $50,000. The failure of Mrs. Leslie to pay any part thereof except the sum of $10,000 bequeathed as aforesaid. The consequent damage to plaintiff in the sum of $40,000 with interest from September 17th, 1915. The complaint concludes with a demand for judgment against defendants for the sum of $40,000 with interest as aforesaid and general relief with costs. III. On or about July 20th, 1917 the defendant served upon petitioner's attorney a notice of a motion "for an order remanding the first cause of action alleged herein to the equity side of the Court and for such other and further relief as may be just, together with the costs of this motion." Said motion came on for argument on September 27th, 1917 before the Honorable Charles M. Hough, U. S. Circuit Judge who upon information and belief, had then been duly designated to hear motions in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Said motion was argued by counsel for the two defendants in support of said motion and by petitioner's counsel, in opposition thereto. The said petitioner's counsel then specifically, orally and subsequently in writing in a brief submitted by him, made as one of the objections to said motion that granting the same would deny to the plaintiff the right to a trial by jury of the issues raised upon the first cause of action, which right was secured petitioner and plaintiff by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and as another objection thereto, that neither said Court nor said Judge had any jurisdiction or power to grant such a motion or to make such an order as was made thereupon. The said Honorable Judge and the said Honorable Court granted said motion by an order entered on or about October 26, 1917. Said order directed as follows: "Ordered that the said motion be and the same hereby is granted, and the first cause of action set forth in the complaint herein be and the same hereby is transferred to the equity side of this Court; and further "Ordered that the said first cause of action be and the same is hereby stricken out of the complaint in this action at law (but only for the purpose of transfer as aforesaid) and that plaintiff have (and she is hereby given) twenty days after the service of this order wherein to make such amendment to the complaint herein (after the said striking out and transfer aforesaid) as she may be advised; and further "Ordered that the Clerk of this court do forthwith and as of the date of this order docket as an equity cause the said first cause of action set forth in the said complaint, and the plaintiff is hereby given twenty days from the service of this order wherein to amend or replace on the equity side of this Court, and defendants are hereby given twenty days |