60 Wn.2d 895, THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, on the Relation of Harvey D. Gunning, et al., Respondents, v. HOWARD ODELL et al., Appellants

[No. 35500. En Banc.      Supreme Court      May 22, 1962.]

THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, on the Relation of Harvey D. Gunning, et al.,
          Respondents, v. HOWARD ODELL et al., Appellants.*

Hearing on exceptions to the taxation of costs. Costs modified.

Charles O. Carroll and Derrill T. Bastian, for appellants.

Cook, Flanagan & Berst and George S. Cook, for respondents.

PER CURIAM. -

This matter comes before this court, under Rule on Appeal 55, RCW Vol. 0, on exceptions to the taxation of costs entered in State ex rel. Gunning v. Odell, 58 Wn. (2d) 275, 362 P. (2d) 254 (1961). We have considered the arguments for and against the exceptions taken and conclude our original ruling as to costs in the above case should be modified. We now hold that the parties shall bear equally the total costs of the appeal.

60 Wn.2d 895, In the Matter of the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of EARL WILLIAM SAWYER, Petitioner, v. B. J. RHAY, as Superintendent of the State Penitentiary, Respondent

[No. 35845. Department One.En Banc.     Supreme CourtEn Banc.     May 31, 1962.]

In the Matter of the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus of EARL WILLIAM SAWYER, Petitioner, v. B. J. RHAY, as Superintendent of the State Penitentiary, Respondent.

Application filed in the Supreme Court December 16, 1960, for a writ of habeas corpus. Dismissed.

Earl William Sawyer, pro se.

The Attorney General and Stephen C. Way, Assistant, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. -

Petitioner Earl William Sawyer filed an original petition for habeas corpus in this court which was consolidated for oral argument with State v. Sawyer, ante p. 83, and another petition for writ of habeas corpus by the same petitioner, post p. 896. In this petition, Earl William Sawyer represents that, at the time of his arrest, the Seattle police took from him the sum of $537, and that, by subsequent order of the superior court, the funds were distributed to third parties.

The writ of habeas corpus is not a device by which the validity of that proceeding may be tested. It is accordingly dismissed.

August 30, 1962. Petition for rehearing denied.


* Reported in 371 P. (2d) 632.

Reported in 371 P. (2d) 934.