On motions to dismiss for want of jurisdiction and to affirm. Messrs. Cortlandt Parker and Richard W. Parker, for defendant in error, in support of motions. Mr. John Linn, for plaintiff in error, contra, Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court: civil proceedings, and proceedings for the pun-IN ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United ishment of crimes are criminal proceedings. States for the District of New Jersey. In the present case the petitioner is held under The history and facts of the case appear in criminal process. The prosecution against the opinion of the court. him is a criminal prosecution, but the writ of habeas corpus which he has obtained is not a proceeding in that prosecution. On the contrary, it is a new suit brought by him to enforce a civil right, which he claims, as against those who are holding him in custody, under the criminal process. If he fails to establish his right to his liberty, he may be detained for trial for the offense; but, if he succeeds, he must be discharged from custody. The proceeding is This was an action of trespass brought by one, instituted by himself for his liberty, not Trotter to recover damages of the New Jersey by the government to punish him for his crime. Zinc Company for entering on his lands and dig This petitioner claims that the Constitution and ging up and carrying away a quantity of franklinite ore. There were three counts in the dec a Treaty of the United States give him the right to his liberty, notwithstanding the charge laration: two quare clausum fregit, and one de that has been made against him, and he has ob- bonis asportatis. The plea was, not guilty. No tained judicial process to enforce that right. other issue was raised by the pleadings. Neither Such a proceeding on his part is, in our opinion, party set up title, so that the only matter in disa civil proceeding, notwithstanding his object pute was the liability of the Zinc Company to is, by means of it, to get released from custody pay for the ore which it was alleged had been under a criminal prosecution. It was said by recovered a judgment for $3,320 damages and wrongfully taken and carried away. Trotter Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for the court, as long ago as Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch, 101: $752.25 costs of suit. From that judgment the "The question whether the individual shall be Trotter now moves to dismiss because the value Zinc Company brought this writ of error, which imprisoned is always distinct from the question whether he shall be convicted or acquitted of of the matter in dispute does not exceed $5,000. the charge on which he is to be tried, and thereAs we decided at the present Term, in Hilton fore these questions are separated, and may be. Dickinson [ante, 688], our jurisdiction is determined by the value of the matter in dispute in this court, and the matter in dispute here in the present case is the judgment below for less than $5,000. It may be that the question act ually litigated below related to the title of the parties to the land from which the ore in controversy was taken, and that the verdict will be conclusive on that question as an estoppel in some other case, but, as was also said at the present Term, in Egin v. Marshall [ante, 249], decided in different courts.' The questions that may be certified to us on a division of opinion before judgment are those which occur on the trial or hearing of a criminal proceeding before a circuit court. It follows that we cannot take jurisdiction of the case in its present form and it is, consequently, remanded to the Circuit Court for further proceedings according to law. True copy. Test: James H. McKenney, Clerk, Sup. Court, U. S. for the purpose of estimating the value on which Dissenting, Mr. Justice Miller. Cited-110 U. S., 385. our jurisdiction depends, reference can only be had to the matter actually in dispute in the particular cause in which the judgment to be re viewed was rendered, and we are not permitted to consider the collateral effect of the judgment in another suit between the same or other par NEW JERSEY ZINC COMPANY, Piff. in ties. It is the money value of what has been Err., v. actually adjudged in the cause that is to be tak en into the account, not the probative force of the judgment in some other suit. Here the thing and the only thing adjudged is that the Zinc Company was guilty of the particular trespass complained of, and must pay Trotter $3,320 for the ore taken away. Had the Zinc Company pleaded title to the land from which the ore was 1. In an action of trespass for entering on lands taken, and issue had been joined on that ples, and digging up and carrying away a quantity of ore, a different question would have been presented. in which there were counts in the declaration quare clausum fregit, and de bonis asportatis, and neither In that way, the land might have been made party set up title, and the plaintiff recovers judg- the matter for adjudication, and thus the mat ment for less than $5,000, this court has no jurisdic-ter in dispute on the record. But, as this case CHARLES W. TROTTER. (See S. C., Reporter's ed., 564, 565.). Jurisdiction as to amount-amount how estimated. tion on writ of error. 2. For the purpose of estimating the value on which the jurisdiction of this court depends, reference can only be had to the matter actually in dispute in the particular cause in which the judgment to be reviewed was rendered; the collateral effect of the judgment in another suit between the same or other parties, although it may operate as an estoppel therein, cannot be considered, [No. 1244.] Motion submitted Apr. 23, 1888. Decided May 7, 1883. stands, only the possession of Trotter and his The motion to dismiss is granted. James H. McKenney, Clerk, Sup. Court, U. & |