Summary

Owen J. Roberts Walker v. Johnston — Opinion of the Court

Since the allegations of such petitions are often inconclusive, the practice has grown up of issuing an order to show cause, which the respondent may answer. By this procedure the facts on which the opposing parties rely may be exhibited, and the court may find that no issue of fact is involved. In this way useless grant of the writ with consequent production of the prisoner and of witnesses may be avoided where from undisputed facts or from incontrovertible facts, such as those recited in a court record, it appears, as matter of law, no cause for granting the writ exists.
Source: Wikisource

Owen J. Roberts Walker v. Johnston — Opinion of the Court

The court or justice or judge 'shall forthwith award a writ of habeas corpus, unless it appears from the petition itself that the party is not entitled thereto.' The writ shall be directed to the person in whose custody the petitioner is detained. [4] The person to whom the writ is directed must certify to the court or judge the true cause of detention and, at the same time he makes his return, bring the body of the party before the judge who granted the writ.
Source: Wikisource

Owen J. Roberts Walker v. Johnston — Opinion of the Court

It is a convenient one, deprives the petitioner of no substantial right, if the petition and traverse are treated, as we think they should be, as together constituting the application for the writ, and the return to the rule as setting up the facts thought to warrant its denial, and if issues of fact emerging from the pleadings are tried as required by the statute.
Second. The District Court proceeded to adjudicate the petitioner's right to the writ upon the allegations of his petition and traverse and those of the return and accompanying affidavits.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature