IN RE ROYALL

IN RE ROYALL. ORIGINAL MOTION IN A CAUSE ADJUDGED AT THE LAST TERM OF THIS COURT. No. 1351 of October Term, 1886. Submitted February 17, 1888. Decided February 20, 1888. The court denies a motion to take action to cause the judgment of a state court to he reversed in obedience to the mandate of this court, on the ground that it did not appear that the petitioner had applied to the highest court of the State to carry the mandate of this court into effect. Mr. Leigh Robinson, on behalf of Mr. "William L. Eoyall, the plaintiff in Royally. Virginia, decided at the,last terra and reported in 121 U. S. at page 102, presented, the following petition. To the Honorable Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States: Your petitioner, "William L. Royall, would respectfully show that in a prosecution, against him in the Hustings court of the city of Richmond, by the Commonwealth of Yirginia, he was convicted and sentenced to'pay a fine of fifty dollars. Your petitioner applied to the supreme court of appeals of said State for a writ of error, to reverse this judgment, but that court refused to award the same. Your petitioner then applied to this Honorable Court for a writ of error, which was awarded, and the judgment of the supreme court of appeals of Yirginia was reversed at the last term of this court, and this court’s mandate was sent to said supreme court of .appeals, directing it to reverse the judgment of said Hustings court. Your petitioner placed the mandate of this court in the hands of Hon. L. L. Lewis, president of the supreme court of appeals of the State of Yirginia, in the month of June, 1887, and prayed that such proceedings might be taken as would cause the judgment of said Hustings court to be reversed. Nevertheless, up to this day said supreme court of appeals of the State of Yirginia has taken no action in the matter, and the judgment and sentence of said Hustings court of the city of Richmond against your petitioner remain in full force and unreversed. Your petitioner prays, therefore, that this Honorable Court will take such action in the premises as will cause said judgment to be reversed. The said supreme court of appeals and the said Hustings • court are both in session at this time. "WM. L. ROYALL. [MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice Waite] Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court. This motion is denied. It does not appear that, the petitioner has ever applied t-o the supreme court of appeals of Yirginia to carry the mandate of this court into effect.